BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Robert Half Ltd (Rhl) v. Daly [1999] UKEAT 541_99_0707 (7 July 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/541_99_0707.html
Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 541_99_0707, [1999] UKEAT 541_99_707

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


BAILII case number: [1999] UKEAT 541_99_0707
Appeal No. EAT/541/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 7 July 1999

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

MR D A C LAMBERT

PROFESSOR P D WICKENS OBE



ROBERT HALF LTD (RHL) APPELLANT

MR K DALY RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

© Copyright 1999


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant MR D TATTON-BROWN
    (OF COUNSEL)
    (Instructed by)
    Messrs Collins Benson Goldhill
    Solicitors
    26/28 Great Portland Street
    London W1N 5AD
       


     

    JUDGE D M LEVY QC: Not without reluctance, because this is an Appeal to reverse a Remedy Hearing where the sum to which the Respondent was held entitled in the sum of £12,000, we have been persuaded by Mr Tatton-Brown that there are arguable points which are contained in the grounds of Appeal which he settled and indeed, we have heard arguments on four of the identified points which we think should go forward.

  1. We hope that this matter will not come to a full hearing because at the end of the day, with both sides represented by Counsel the legal costs of the Appeal may be nearly as great as the admitted difference, the greatest amount which will be due to the Appellant and the Respondent. Mr Tatton-Brown properly has told us frankly that a sum of £4,000 must, in any event, be due to Mr Daly.
  2. As to the directions for the Hearing, we have been given apparently all the documents which were before the Employment Tribunal. It seems to us directions should be that the Appellant should, within a date which we will hear from Mr Tatton-Brown, write to the Respondent saying which documents his client wish to be in the bundle and the Respondent should have a period in which to say if he requires additional documents, so a bundle can be prepared for the Tribunal in good time for the full hearing of the Appeal.
  3. Category C. ½ day to a day.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/541_99_0707.html