[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Pashby v. ABI (UK) Ltd [2000] UKEAT 527_00_2306 (23 June 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/527_00_2306.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 527__2306, [2000] UKEAT 527_00_2306

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR DEREK JOHNSON (Representative) UCATT 64-66 Crossgate Road Leeds LS15 7NN


 


MISS RECORDER SLADE QC: This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mr Pashby against the decision of an Employment Tribunal held in Hull. The appeal is against the computation and quantum of the award for unfair dismissal ordered to be paid to the appellant.

1. The Employment Tribunal held that the appellant had been unfairly dismissed by the respondent. Mr Johnson, who has very persuasively presented Mr Pashby's case to us today, has taken us through the grounds of appeal lodged in this case.
2. In our view the grounds of appeal, save for one matter to which I will return, do raise reasonably arguable points. I will turn to them in outline.
3. So far as the first ground of appeal is concerned, at first blush it appeared that a complaint was being made that a redundancy payment was offset against the basic award for unfair dismissal. Plainly that is an offsetting which occurs by reason of statute and no complaint can be made of it. However, as the argument developed it appeared that the real complaint was that the Tribunal had reasoned in paragraph 8B(iii) of its reasons that no sum should be awarded in respect of loss of statutory rights because the appellant had received a substantial redundancy payment. It is, in our view, arguable that there was an error of law in adopting that approach and we suggest that the ground of appeal be amended to reflect an attack on 8B(iii) of the Tribunal's decision, so that anyone coming across this at a later stage does not also think that an attack being made against a finding that a redundancy payment wipes out any entitlement to a basic award.
4. So far as the other grounds of appeal are concerned, it is said that the reduction of the award by a percentage to reflect the chance that the employee may not have been retained in employment had there not been the unfair dismissal. It is also said that the percentage attributed to that chance is a perverse percentage. Before us Mr Johnson stated that no complaint is being made of the Tribunal's adopting a percentage approach, but it is said that the percentage itself is perverse. We require that amended grounds of appeal be served dealing with this point, specifying the basis upon which it is said that the percentage applied by the tribunal is perverse. Similarly, in relation to the level of salary at which the possible alternative job would have paid, if complaint is being made, as we understand that it is, that the sum upon which calculations are based is perversely low, the grounds of perversity must be specified in amended grounds of appeal.
5. On that basis, we permit this appeal to proceed. Amended grounds of appeal to be served within 21 days. Time estimate for the appeal is half a day. Skeleton arguments to be exchanged not later than seven days before the hearing of the appeal.