[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> O'Donoghue v. Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council [1999] UKEAT 106_99_2004 (20 April 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/106_99_2004.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 106_99_2004

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MS T GILL OF COUNSEL (Instructed by) Messrs Mortons 17 Fawcett Street Sunderland Tyne & Wear SR1 1RL


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this Hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law in an Appeal which Ms O'Donoghue wishes to make against an Employment Tribunal decision limiting her compensation for injury to feeling to the sum of £2,000 odd. The litigation in this case is complex and has involved more than one decision and more than one Notice of Appeal. There is currently allowed to proceed to a full Hearing an Appeal against an earlier decision of the Employment Tribunal to the effect that she would have been fairly dismissed within 6 months if she had not been dismissed by way of victimisation. That point is going to have to be considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

In relation to this particular decision, Ms Gill makes essentially two points. She says first of all, that if the Appeal on the 6 months point were to succeed then the Remedy decision would have to be set aside and remedies recalculated; and that would include the limitation of her compensation for injury to feelings. Secondly, and in any event, there is a challenge to the approach of the Employment Tribunal in limiting her injury to feelings to the sum of £2,000 based on the fact that she would have been fairly, but hurtfully, but lawfully dismissed 6 months after she was unfairly and unlawfully dismissed. That finding, says Ms Gill, is somewhat remarkable, having regard to the earlier findings by the Employment Tribunals. Whether it is odd or not is a matter which we think will need to be examined at a Full Hearing. We are satisfied that both those points need to be looked at and this Appeal cannot be regarded or treated separately or differently from what might be described as one of the main appeals with which this Court will be concerned. Accordingly, the matter will be allowed to proceed to a Full Hearing.

For the record, I should state that there is now to be a Directions Hearing in relation to this case and it is hoped that at Directions Hearing all the various Appeals can be dealt with in a way which will lead to a reasonably quick determination of the issues which arise.