Appeal No.	 EAT/997/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 15 April 2002

Before
MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC
MISS C HOLROYD
MR D NORMAN

MR R A WEDGEWOOD	APPELLANT

HORTIMAX LTD 
(FORMERLY VAN VLIET AUTOMATION LTD)	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR QUINN 
(of Counsel)
Appearing under the
Employment Law Appeal 
Advice Scheme	

RECORDER LANGSTAFF:
1.	In this case the Appellant has had the inestimable advantage of being represented by Mr Quinn under the ELAAS scheme.  He has persuaded us, although not without considerable hesitation that there may be two arguable points in this appeal.  

2.	They are simply these.  First whether the Tribunal fell into error in dealing with the question whether the delay by Mr Wedgewood was such that he must be taken to have affirmed the contract of employment and was disentitled to accept the conduct of his management in requiring him to participate in a fraud as terminating it.  They may have focussed upon a delay of two and a half months, the period between 17 December and 29 February in the following year, rather than the period of 13 days, after which an investigation by the companies’ accountants was reported to him. 

3.	We consider it arguable that the relevant period was the latter shorter period and not the earlier longer one.  

4.	Secondly, although Mr Quinn (in our view correctly) says that it is no error of law for a Tribunal to determine that it will hear a submission that there is no case to answer, after having heard the evidence of one party only, he argues that the discretion to take that course was here wrongly exercised.  We think this is arguable on the basis that a decision as to what time was appropriate in deciding whether or not Mr Wedgewood had affirmed the contract or whether he was still entitled to accept the employers’ repudiatory behaviour could not have been finally reached at that stage.  

5.	The Tribunal might have been helpfully informed by considering what view Mr Wedgewood was entitled to take of his employers’ management.  That was something they could only properly assess if they had heard those members of management themselves give evidence or at least be described in various respects by those who did.  Accordingly, we think that on those two bases and two bases only, there may be an arguable point in this case and on that basis we think it should be argued between the parties.  
6.	We consider that it will take no more than two hours to argue.  It is Category C. Skeletons arguments should be provided by both parties no less than 14 days prior to the hearing, together with copies of any authorities to be relied upon.