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 >> Knotts v United Friendly Insurance Plc [2002] UKEAT 702_02_2810 (28 October 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/702_02_2810.html
Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 702_02_2810, [2002] UKEAT 702_2_2810

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


BAILII case number: [2002] UKEAT 702_02_2810
Appeal No. EAT/702/02

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 28 October 2002

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE J BURKE QC

MRS L TINSLEY

MISS D WHITTINGHAM



MR D J KNOTTS APPELLANT

UNITED FRIENDLY INSURANCE PLC RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant No appearance or
    representation by or
    on behalf of the Appellant

       


     

    HIS HONOUR JUDGE J BURKE QC

  1. In this case the Tribunal found that the employers had unfairly dismissed Mr Knotts for redundancy. The unfairness was procedural; in relation to the job of Area Manager, he had not been interviewed when he should have been.
  2. We understand from the Notice of Appeal that, at the end of the hearing, the Tribunal did not hear any submissions on compensation or on the application to the facts of the Polkey principle; but without any submissions, as it would seem from the Notice of Appeal, they set out to consider the application of the Polkey principle to the facts which they had found.
  3. They then came to the conclusion, in paragraph 8, that it was impossible to put a realistic or any figure on loss and that any award they made would have been affected (but they do not say cancelled out) by payments that Mr Knotts had already received.
  4. Mr Knotts, in his Notice of Appeal attacks that conclusion of the Tribunal. We need say no more than that, having read the papers, we regard his appeal, as set out in paragraph 6 of his Notice of Appeal, as arguable; and therefore it should go forward to a full hearing. Category C, an hour and a half, usual rules as to Skeletons.
  5. We should make it clear that Mr Knotts has not attended today; he wrote a letter to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 7 October of this year, saying that he was unable to attend the hearing and was unable to afford help with representation. He sent us a Skeleton Argument; we have therefore proceeded on the basis of our reading of the papers without his attendance.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/702_02_2810.html