[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Baghri v. Bailiss (t/a Unisex Hair & Beauty Salson) [2000] UKEAT 124_00_2106 (21 June 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/124_00_2106.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 124_00_2106, [2000] UKEAT 124__2106

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


MISS RECORDER SLADE QC: I understand that neither Mrs Baghri nor Mr Baghri is going to be here this morning. Mr Baghri has sent in a letter explaining that he will not be here and has put forward certain written submissions.

1. This is a preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mrs Baghri against the quantum of compensation awarded by an Employment Tribunal sitting at Leicester on 7th December 1999, entered in the Register on 14th December 1999.
2. The tribunal had found that Mrs Baghri had been unfairly dismissed and awarded her compensation of £200 and also made an award in respect of unauthorised deductions in the sum of £90.
3. Mrs Baghri worked on two days a week at a hair salon, starting on 13th August 1999. She was a student at a college in Loughborough studying hairdressing. Her wages were originally £50. They were reduced to £30 per week. When Mrs Baghri made complaint that her reduced wages were below the national minimum wage, her employment came to an end and it ended on 13th September 1999.
4. The issue, which arises on the appeal, is on the question of quantum. The tribunal made findings in relation to the quantum of Mrs Baghri's loss. They made a finding that they did not consider that the appellant had fully mitigated her loss and they took into account their knowledge of employment circumstances in the East Midlands in making the award that they did.
5. In our view, there is just an arguable point in this appeal on perversity on the way in which the tribunal approached the question of loss. We allow this appeal to go forward solely on the question of whether the conclusion of the tribunal, that Mrs Baghri had not fully mitigated her loss (in the sense of not taking reasonable steps to mitigate her loss) was a perverse conclusion. This includes the question of whether it was permissible in the circumstances for the tribunal to rely on their knowledge of employment circumstances in the East Midlands in reaching their decision. An amended Notice of Appeal should be lodged with the Employment Appeal Tribunal within 21 days. We also order that the Chairman's Notes of Evidence be produced on the issue which is the only issue in this appeal which is allowed to go forward, namely the question of whether the tribunal erred in concluding that Mrs Baghri had not taken proper steps to mitigate her loss.
6. We consider that the hearing of this appeal should take no longer than one hour. This judgment is not to be taken as any indication to Mrs Baghri that we consider that her appeal has a reasonable chance of succeeding, it is simply an indication that there is just about an arguable point on the question of loss.