Appeal No. EAT/925/02/ILB

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 26 November 2003

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J ALTMAN
MR D A C LAMBERT
MRS J M MATTHIAS

MR S RICKERSEY	APPELLANT

W & J LINNEY LTD	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION
BY OR ON BEHALF OF
THE APPELLANT

JUDGE J ALTMAN:

1	This is an appeal from the decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Nottingham on 8 July 2002, when an Order was made staying the application of the Applicant/Appellant pending the conclusion of high court proceedings.  

2	We are giving a very short judgment which is to be transcribed and distributed to the parties because, for perfectly understandable reasons, the Appellant is not here today and in the nature of things, because this is a preliminary hearing, the Respondent is not here, and we have considered whether there is a point of law which can properly be argued in full before the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

3	We have come to the conclusion that there is room for argument as to the extent to which the Employment Tribunal balanced against the factors they relied on, the delay that would be caused and the possible balancing of hardship that that would entail and whether they received evidence on that matter.  Secondly, it seems to us that there is room for argument as to whether the principles applicable in this type of situation, as exemplified in some of the older cases, fall to be reviewed in the light of the fact that Employment Tribunals now have jurisdiction to deal with contractual claims.  Finally, there is the extent to which the Respondents have demonstrated the complexity of issues or substance in the allegations they were making, bearing in mind the Appellant’s contention that the application for an adjournment was a device and the extent to which the Tribunal considered this matter on the morning of the hearing.

4	Finally, we would ask the Chairman to clarify the listing and procedural situation that existed in relation to the contention of the Appellant in his submission that the application was dealt with on the morning of the five-day hearing when the members were listed in another Tribunal in the afternoon on that day.  Otherwise, automatic directions will apply.