Appeal No.	 EAT/602/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 21 November 2001

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D PUGSLEY
MR P A L PARKER CBE
MR S M SPRINGER MBE

A C M BEARINGS LTD	APPELLANT

MR A NOBLE	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING 

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MISS LUCY BONE
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Mentor
134 West Regent Street
Glasgow G2 2RQ	

JUDGE D PUGSLEY

1	Having heard the oral argument of Miss Bone, which shows brevity is not inconsistent with cogency, we have come to the view arguable points are raised in the ground of appeal.

2	We deprecate combing through a decision with a toothcomb to see if there can be any attempt to argue that this particular formula or liturgy was not set out or intoned, therefore there is an error of law.  But we are concerned that the issues which have been raised are matters that, arguably, give rise to grounds of appeal which could be sustained.  The fact there is no mention in the Decision of British Home Stores Ltd-v- Burchell does not in any way make the Decision defective, but we are concerned, where the Tribunal has illustrated that it applied that test.  

3	Secondly, we are concerned as to whether or not the Tribunal has directed themselves as to the significance of the Applicant failing to give evidence and reminded itself that the Tribunal is evaluating the Respondent’s view of the credibility of the Applicant and not engaged in a free floating decision as to credibility itself.  

4	There is a suggestion that at times the Tribunal has used language which would suggest that there was a burden upon the Respondent to produce evidence which proved that the Applicant was guilty of misconduct, rather than the rather more fluid test of the Tribunal considering, in all the circumstances, whether the Respondent had acted reasonably.  

5	Fourthly, we think that there is an issue that can properly be argued; that the cumulative effect of allegations made was not considered by the Tribunal as fully as it should have been.  

6	In a nutshell, we do consider this matter is arguable on the four grounds set out.  We think this is a Category C case, time estimate half a day.  There is no need for the Chairman’s notes.