[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Jones v. Reith Lambert Facilities Management Ltd [2002] UKEAT 0009_02_2410 (24 October 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/0009_02_2410.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 0009_02_2410, [2002] UKEAT 9_2_2410

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

APPEARANCES

 

 

For the Appellant	Ms M Ram, Advocate Instructed by- Easterhouse Citizens Advice Bureau 46 Shandwick Square GLASGOW G34 9DS
For the Respondents	Miss C Brattey, Solicitor Of- Messrs Burness Solicitors 242 West George Street GLASGOW G2 4QY


 


LORD JOHNSTON:

1. In this appeal the appellant employee challenges the decision of the Employment Tribunal in respect of his application for both unfair dismissal and disability discrimination whereby, after a preliminary hearing related to the issue of disability, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. Insofar as the claim was presented under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, it was accordingly dismissed.
2. Before us, Ms Ram, appearing for the appellant, both submitted that it was inappropriate in the circumstances for the Tribunal to have held a preliminary hearing and thereafter went on to challenge its findings as a matter of alleged errors of law.
3. We do not consider it necessary to examine the contents of the decision in any detail because we are entirely satisfied given the nature of these claims that they are so interrelated that it was inappropriate to restrict the issue of disablement to a preliminary hearing. Furthermore the appellant was given no notice until the morning that that was what was going to happen and could therefore be fairly described as having been ambushed by the Chairman's decision. The IT1 makes it clear that his mental health is inextricably bound up with the working environment and the circumstances surrounding the termination of his employment and, therefore, we consider that the issues in this case have to be considered as a unit.
4. Without further ado, we will accordingly allow this appeal and remit the matter back to a full hearing before a differently constituted Employment Tribunal since it is plain that the present one has really had its mind directed to certain issues and may not re-approach the matter with an open mind.