Appeal No.	EAT/1315/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 9 February 1999

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHARLES
MR L D COWAN
LORD GLADWIN OF CLEE CBE JP

MR M ST HILAIRE & 72 OTHERS	APPELLANTS

HOLIDAY DYES & CHEMICALS LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR T LINDEN
(of Counsel)
Messrs Pattinson & Brewer
Solicitors
30 Great James Street
London WC1N 3HA	

	MR JUSTICE CHARLES:     The parties to this appeal are Marcus St Hilaire and 72 others (the Appellants) and Holiday Dyes & Chemicals Ltd, (the Respondent).

	The issue before the Tribunal related to the construction of an agreement, a point made on the appeal is that the Tribunal took the wrong approach to construction.

	In our judgment that is plainly arguable having regard to the approach conveniently set out in Chitty, 27th Edition, paragraphs 12-102 to 105 and 111 and we would add that those passages in the textbook have been the subject of recent explanation by the House of Lords, particularly Lord Hoffmann in two cases:  Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] AC 749 and in the Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896, the issue being as to construction it is one of law and in our judgment it is reasonably arguable that the Tribunal took the wrong approach and therefore this appeal should proceed.