[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Heald Nickinson Solicitors v. Summers & Ors [2001] UKEAT 1504_00_2202 (22 February 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1504_00_2202.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 1504__2202, [2001] UKEAT 1504_00_2202

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR D LINTOTT (Of Counsel) Instructed by Heald Nickinson 24 Park Street Camberley Surrey GU15 3PL


 


MR COMMISSIONER HOWELL QC

1. In this Appeal which is before us today for Preliminary Hearing, Heald Nickinson, a firm of solicitors are seeking to have set aside as erroneous in law the decision of the Reading Employment Tribunal set out in extended reasons sent to the parties on 30 October 2000 after hearing on 10 October 2000. The Tribunal decided by a majority that Heald Nickinson should be joined as a second Respondent to proceedings originally brought against a former sole practitioner, Mr Parkinson trading as Parkinson & Co, by seven of the former employees of Mr Parkinson's firm. His goodwill and assets have been taken over by Heald Nickinson following Mr Parkinson getting into financial difficulties and the Law Society having to intervene.
2. By a majority the Tribunal decided that Heald Nickinson should be joined as an additional Respondent to the claims brought by the 7 former employees of the firm: these claimed variously redundancy payments and compensation for unfair dismissal arising out of the collapse of the former firm. The basis on which Heald Nickinson are said to be liable to pay such compensation and/or redundancy payments is that they became liable by way of succession to the original employer's liabilities, on a transfer of undertaking to which the TUPE regulations apply.
3. We have been satisfied by the argument of Mr Lintott who has appeared for Heald Nickinson before us on the Preliminary Hearing today that the Notice of Appeal dated 27 November 2000, pages 1-4 of the Appeal file before us raises an arguable point on whether the majority of the Tribunal correctly directed their minds to the relevant considerations (in particular in paragraph 21 of the Tribunal's extended reasons at page 21 of the Appeal file) before determining that Heald Nickinson should be joined as regards the claims for unfair dismissal: the application to join them having been outside the three months time limit for such claims. It is not disputed and Mr Lintott made this clear that there can be no objection to the order joining Heald Nickinson as the Respondent in respect of the redundancy payment claims for which there is a different time limit of 6 months from the effective date of termination of the employment.
4. As regards the unfair dismissal claims we will direct that the Appeal should go forward to a full hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Listing Category C. Estimate length of hearing - 1 day. We direct that skeleton arguments should be exchanged between the parties on the joinder of unfair dismissal issue, and lodged with the Employment Appeal Tribunal office not later than 14 days before the date to be fixed for the full hearing. We do not consider that any Chairman's notes of evidence or proceedings will be required. We will give leave to the Appellants to amend the Notice of Appeal slightly so as to clarify what Mr Lintott agreed in the course of the argument before us, that paragraph 6.1 is based only on the alleged failure of the Tribunal to apply properly the correct test when exercising its discretion as regards the unfair dismissal claims.
5. Finally we add this observation, that in directing a full hearing on the issue of the joinder of Heald Nickinson as regards the unfair dismissal claims we wish to make clear that we do not intend that the consideration by the Employment Tribunal of the substantive issue on the transfer of undertaking point should or need be in any way deferred. That is a matter that must arise any way before the redundancy payment claims can be determined, which the Appellant admits are not in any way affected by this present Appeal. We record our own view that there is everything to be gained by the Employment Tribunal proceeding to consider that transfer of undertaking issue as soon as possible, as the effect of their determination on that issue could even be to render a full hearing of this present Appeal unnecessary.