Appeal No.	 EAT/1489/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 24 March 1999

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLLAND
MR L D COWAN
MR E HAMMOND OBE

MR D RIGGALL & OTHERS	APPELLANTS

GLOBAL SHIPPING SERVICES LTD	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR J TAYLER
(of Counsel)
Instructed by

MR G HOLT
Messrs Bridge McFarland
Solicitors
19 South Street
Mary's Gate
Grimsby, N E Lincolnshire DN31 1JE	

	THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLLAND	This matter arises out of the complaint by some 11 persons that they were unfairly dismissed by the Respondents.  The background is an alleged redundancy situation and the case raises issues as to the method by which redundancy was selected and in particular, it raises to issues by reference to Section 98(4) Employment Rights Act.  

	The matter came before an Employment Tribunal held at Hull in September 1998.  In the upshot, the Tribunal, with reluctance, found itself obliged to dismiss the complaints.  An appeal is now mounted to this Tribunal based upon a Notice of Appeal which appears to have raised every point that came into the fertile imagination of the draftsman.  Happily, we have had today the benefit of submissions by Mr Taylor based upon a skeleton argument.  Our task this morning is to decide whether by such means, these unsuccessful Applicants have raised a point of law that merits an inter-partes hearing.  

	We have decided that Mr Taylor has made out a case for such a hearing.  We base this decision upon his skeleton argument which we direct should stand in this matter in place of the Notice of Appeal, although it is fair to say that the essential points are raised by paragraph 6.3, and more particularly by 6.4 of that Notice.  We make no particular distinction between the points that he raises, but that which has had a particular impact upon us arises out of his schedules.  These schedules were prepared for this Tribunal.  None such were seemingly before the Employment Tribunal.  

	It is plain that taking but one example, Mr Riggall went from an initial score of 76 to a final score of 92.  He was nonetheless put in the same position as Mr Proctor (initial score 54, final score 54).  We can find no clear indication that the Tribunal applied its mind to that step up in scoring and to the significance upon the decision to maintain redundancy.  It is true that in paragraph 5.1(5) of the Extended Reasons they do contend that they have listened to each Applicant’s arguments, but in the result they have failed to spell out their response to the obvious Applicant’s case, namely what governs these substantial changes in between initial and the final scores.  What then is the basis upon which taking Mr Riggall as an example he can be found to have been fairly dismissed for redundancy?  

	Having thus indicated the matters that concern us, we give leave so that they and the other matters raised by Mr Taylor can have the benefit of an inter-partes hearing.  Listing Category: C.  Length: half day.