Appeal No.	 EAT/610/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 29 October 1997

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
LORD GLADWIN OF CLEE CBE JP
MISS S M WILSON

GATE GOURMET ECAS LTD	APPELLANTS

MR G SINGH	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR P OLDHAM
(of Counsel)
Messrs Clarks
Solicitors
Great Western House
Station Road
Reading
Berkshire
RG1 1SX	

	MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY:   This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by European Air Catering Services Ltd against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal at London (North) following a hearing on 18th March 1997.

	In his skeleton argument Mr Oldham sought to identify seven errors of law upon which the appellants seek to pursue their appeal. We indicated at the outset of the hearing that we were satisfied that there was arguable material in relation to grounds (i), (iii) and (v) in that skeleton and we confirm that view.

	Mr Oldham has made submissions in relation to the other alleged errors of law. Having considered the matter, we will permit him to proceed also on items (ii) and (iv) from the list in his skeleton argument. They seem to us to be closely related to ground (iii) and they seem to us to be arguable. The argument themselves should not greatly lengthen the proceedings because it seems to us that much of the material upon which they are based would have to be referred to in relation to ground (iii) in any event.

	That brings us to grounds (vi) and (vii). Mr Oldham refers to ground (vi) in his skeleton argument as:

 “(vi) Failure to consider whether a fair procedure would have made any difference”.

and ground (vii) is referred to as:

“(vii) Perverse finding of only 20 per cent contribution”.

It seems to us that in relation to both these grounds they would only enter the frame at all if there had been success on one or more of grounds (i) to (v). If this appeal fails in relation to grounds (i) to (v), we cannot conceive of circumstances where there would be success in relation to (vi) and (vii). In addition, we bear in mind that there is nothing to suggest that ground (vi) was ever directly raised in the Industrial Tribunal.

	Accordingly, it is our judgment that this matter ought now to proceed to a final hearing, but on grounds (i) to (v) alone. 

	In referring to grounds by numbers in the last few minutes, we have followed the enumeration in Mr Oldham’s skeleton argument. We observe that that does not correspond either in sequence or in some cases substance with the Notice of Appeal. What we shall do is grant leave for fresh grounds of appeal to be lodged within 14 days reflecting the skeleton argument. It is unusual for things to proceed that way round, but it seems to us that the matters as set out in the skeleton argument are in a more logical, succinct and comprehensive form than were those in the Notice of Appeal.