Appeal No.	EAT/1091/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 8 February 2001

Before
MR COMMISSIONER HOWELL QC
MR J HOUGHAM CBE
MRS M T PROSSER

MRS H WILDING	APPELLANT

DR JEREMY RUSSELL	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR DAMIAN McCARTHY
(of Counsel)
Messrs Freeman Box
Solicitors
8 Bentinck Street
London
W1U 2BJ

MR COMMISSIONER HOWELL QC:

1	In this appeal which is before us today for preliminary hearing Mrs Hazel Wilding seeks to have set aside, as erroneous in law, the decision of the London North Employment Tribunal contained in Extended Reasons sent to the parties on 14 July 2000, at pages 3 to 10 of the appeal file before us.

2	The complaint Mrs Wilding had made to the Tribunal was of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal.  It was common ground there was a summary dismissal on 30 September 1999 for alleged gross misconduct following the discovery of what were alleged to be billing irregularities in the accounts of the Doctor’s Practice where she was the Practice Manager.  An earlier complaint of disability discrimination was abandoned before the Tribunal.

3	The Tribunal’s conclusion that she had not been unfairly dismissed and that her summary dismissal was, in the circumstances, within the band of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer, is challenged by the Notice of Appeal, which has been submitted on her behalf by Mr McCarthy who also appeared for her before us, alleging that the Tribunal’s decision was perverse.

4	We do not need, for this morning’s purposes, to go into the details of the case any further beyond saying that we are satisfied that there are arguable points here to warrant a full hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal which we accordingly direct.

5	The principal issue which we consider the Employment Appeal Tribunal will need to consider is whether the Tribunal’s decision that the sanction of summary dismissal without anything like a full disciplinary process was in the circumstances justified, it being common ground, in particular, that there was no suggestion that Mrs Wilding had, in any way, benefited financially herself from the alleged irregularities.  In that context it will be material to consider whether the Tribunal erred in failing to make any finding about whether Mrs Wilding reasonably understood herself to be authorised to set the level of fees for the doctors which were the subject matter of the dispute.

6	On that footing we will simply direct that the case should go forward to a full hearing, listing Category C, estimated length of hearing half a day.  We direct in the usual way that skeleton arguments should be exchanged between the parties and lodged with the Employment Appeal Tribunal office not later than 14 days before the date fixed for the hearing.  No direction for Notes of Chairman’s evidence.