Appeal No.	 EAT/765/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 14 January 1997

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE C SMITH QC
MR D A C LAMBERT
MR P A L PARKER CBE

MR T ULLAH	APPELLANT

CELMEC LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR C WILLIAMS
(of Counsel)
Messrs Sushma Lal
Solicitors
101 Windsor Road
Oldham
OL8 1RP	

	JUDGE COLIN SMITH QC:   We think that there is one arguable point on appeal, and that is the point arising out of the recent decision of Sedley J in Aspden v Webb Poultry [1996] IRLR 521, which appears to us to be relevant here. 

	It is arguable that there was an implied term in effect that the employers would not dismiss on the grounds of long-term disability or long-term illness in circumstances where the employee may have had a right under the long-term disability insurance scheme. We believe that point which relates to law which has been decided since the tribunal hearing, is a matter that ought to be considered. It is an arguable point, that had such an argument been addressed to the Industrial Tribunal, based on the Aspden case, they might have concluded, despite the apparent attitude of the applicant that the employers should proceed with the internal appeal without a consultant’s report, nevertheless we think it just arguable here that the Industrial Tribunal might have held that the dismissal was unreasonable and unfair in the light of the recent decision of Sedley J in the Aspden case. On that basis we will allow this matter to proceed to an appeal. 

	We do not think that there is anything in the point that notes of evidence are required. The Industrial Tribunal stated that they preferred the evidence of the respondent’s witnesses to those of the applicant. We are not going to make any order for any Notes of Evidence.

	We do think that you have shown that one arguable point. So you have leave to proceed to a full hearing on that basis.