Appeal No.	 EAT/392/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 14 July 1997

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
MRS T A MARSLAND
MR R H PHIPPS

CHEERS OFF LICENCE	APPELLANTS

MRS J RICHARDSON	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):   The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law in a decision arrived at by a Manchester Industrial Tribunal after a hearing on 21st November 1996. It was the unanimous decision of the tribunal that the respondents, Cheers Off Licence, be ordered to pay the applicant the sum of £1,215.20. 

	The applicant, was unfairly dismissed. The tribunal calculated her basic award and then sought to calculate her compensatory award. They indicate in their decision that they have preferred the Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in a case called Ging v Ellward Lanc. Ltd [1978] 13 ITR 265 to a subsequent decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Fentiman v Fluid Engineering Products Ltd [1991] IRLR 150 and Lytlarch Ltd v Reid [1991] ICR 216. 

	The appellants have been unable to attend this morning and have submitted a wholly illegible skeleton argument. But, in their absence, we have considered the Notice of Appeal and it seems to us that there is an arguable point of law as to whether the Industrial Tribunal was correct in its approach to the two conflicting approaches of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in an important question relating to the calculation of compensation. 

	On that issue, and that issue alone, we will allow the matter to proceed to a full hearing. It seems to us that should be marked Category C. Which, in this instance, stands for His Honour Judge Peter Clark who should deal with this matter. That the estimated hearing length will be half a day, and that the Notes of Evidence will not be required. On that issue alone, the case should proceed to a full hearing.