MR D DONALD v MERCURY RECYCLING LTD [2002] UKEAT 1128_01_1303

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
BAILII case number: [2002] UKEAT 1128_01_1303Case No Appeal No. EAT/1128/01Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
Between
MR D DONALDAPPELLANTMERCURY RECYCLING LTDRESPONDENT
Before
Mr Justice Holland Mr B GibbsDate 13 March 2002
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant MR A J BEANEY (Representative) Employment Practice 17 Hartley Avenue Manchester M25 0AT MR JUSTICE HOLLAND: This matter is listed before us today by way of a preliminary hearing, it is our task to decide whether the Notice of Appeal reveals sufficient to justify the adjournment of this matter for the representation before this Tribunal not only of the Appellant, Mr David Donald, but also of the Respondents, Mercury Recycling Limited.[2]The essential thrust of the Notice of Appeal is to the effect that the fact-finding that appears in the extended reasons was broad-brush and signally failed to address the correspondence that had passed between Mr Donald and Mr Lebor, it also failed to address the minutes of the various meetings and hearings that took place in order to resolve his employment position. The upshot appears from this extract from the notice of appeal:
"(i) There is no account as to the Respondent denying the Appellant a right to return to work following sick leave. (ii) There is no account as the Respondent suspending the Appellant without any substantial reason. (iii) There is no detailed account of the grievance procedure, raised by the Appellant, in respect of (i) and (ii) being met with no reasoning other than the statement of dismissal."
[3]That Notice of Appeal is supported by production of various documents that are now appended to our bundle. Perusal of those documents does raise an arguable issue as to whether that which they reveal and indeed their sequence should not have made a contribution to the fact-finding by the Tribunal. It raises therefore a further issue as to whether that fact-finding as flawed, did not in its turn reflect an error of law.[4]For those reasons we direct that the matter be adjourned, that it be re-listed on an inter-partes basis and we would suggest a hearing for a 2 hour period. We further direct there be an exchange of skeleton arguments 14 days before the inter-partes hearing.