Appeal No. EAT/546/93

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 7 March 1994

	Before

	HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE OBE QC

	MR T S BATHO

	MR D O GLADWIN CBE

MR E HODDER	APPELLANT

DAY & SONS (BRENTWOOD) LTD	RESPONDENTS

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

	PRELIMINARY HEARING 

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR J SUDDABY
(OF COUNSEL)
Wandsworth Law Centre
248 Lavender Hill
London SW11 1LJ

	

	JUDGE HARGROVE OBE QC:  The basis upon which this case is urged is that the Tribunal, in reaching a conclusion that there was a redundancy situation, has misdirected itself.  I need not go into the facts at any detail but the Tribunal did find that there was a situation under the contract whereby the proposed Appellant could be ordered to serve at any reasonable place.  The Appellant did not wish to do any work which did not involve 8 wheel vehicle driving.  That work was not open to him, the only depot which was in existence to deal with 8 wheelers namely Purley and Crawley.

	What the Tribunal found was that that made him redundant.  We can see a technical argument of law upon that.  In those circumstances, bearing in mind the very narrow grounds upon which we are allowed to stop a case at this point, we are obliged to let it go forward.  We emphasise the technical nature of this attack upon the decision of the Tribunal and in those circumstances and bearing in mind all the matters we have raised today about the likely outcome, what we are going to do is to note on the file that all courts which deal with this hereafter should monitor carefully the question of costs.