Appeal No.	 EAT/1022/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 5 December 1996

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR E HAMMOND OBE
MR J C SHRIGLEY

WILLIAM YOUNGER & CO LTD	APPELLANTS

MR D ELLIS	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR I TRUSCOTT
(of Counsel)
Messrs Mackay Simon
Employment Lawyers
63 Frederick Street
Edinburgh
EH2 1LH	

	JUDGE LEVY QC:   Mr D Ellis was dismissed by William Younger & Co Ltd following information received which suggested that he had been guilty of improper conduct. He complained about his dismissal and there was a hearing before an Industrial Tribunal which lasted for five days. At the end of the hearing the Industrial Tribunal found that he was unfairly dismissed. The decision was sent to the parties on 11th June 1996. 

	The Company which is by no means a small company, decided that it wanted to appeal, but did not take the step which it is required to do under the Rules to seek extended reasons from the Industrial Tribunal, it only having been provided with summary reasons. The Company sent a Notice of Appeal to this tribunal which notified it that extended reasons were required under the Rules before the appeal could proceed to a hearing. By the time the Company made the necessary application to the Industrial Tribunal for extended reasons it was out of time and the Industrial Tribunal, in our judgment quite rightly, refused to provide them. 

	In those circumstances, Mr Truscott who appears for the Company on the ex parte application for leave to appeal, asks us to use our discretion to allow the appeal to go ahead. In connection with that he has drawn our attention to the decision in William Hill Organisation v Gravas [1990] IRLR 488 where an appeal such as this was mounted, and this tribunal used its discretion to let the matter go ahead, and he also refers us to the decision in Wolesey Centers Ltd v Simmons [1994] ICR 501 where Judge Hague and colleagues analysed the circumstances in which the application was made, allowed the appeal to go ahead and then went on to allow the appeal. Then both parties were represented. 

	Mr Truscott makes his application under the ex parte procedure which is used as a filter to weed out hopeless appeals.

	In the circumstances of this case, this being an ex parte application, we not having heard from the respondent employee but, having looked at the reasons given in the decision, it seems to us that this is a case where the appeal could be allowed to go ahead on terms that in any event the employer (the appellant) will pay the costs of the respondent to the appeal, who is going to be disadvantaged because the extended reasons are not available. Having taken instructions Mr Truscott tells us that this is a term the employer accepts. That does not mean of course that the appeal is likely to succeed, but having looked into the summary reasons and having looked at the facts, we can see that there is an arguable case to go forward by the employer, that there was an error of law in the circumstances of this case. 

	The Notice of Appeal is so far in a rudimentary state. The employer must formulate and lodge a Notice of Appeal within 14 days of today. As it is obvious to us that the hearing of the appeal issues are almost certain to arise from the evidence given to the Industrial Tribunal, we will direct that a request be made to the Chairman to provide his Notes of Evidence. The bundles and skeleton arguments should be lodged 14 days before the appeal.