Appeal No.	 EAT/328/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 27 April 1998

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
MR D J HODGKINS CB
MR S M SPRINGER MBE

STONHAM HOUSING ASSOCIATION LTD	APPELLANTS

MR D SHORT	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR S S SOOR
(of Counsel)
Messrs Kingsford Stacey Blackwell
Solicitors
14 Old Square
Lincoln's Inn
London
WC2A 3UB	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):	Mr Soor on behalf of Stonham Housing Association Ltd persuaded us that it would be correct for this case to go for a full hearing. 

	We have not found this at all an easy matter at the preliminary hearing stage. 

	The learned Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal chose to sit on his own in relation to this case. The issue being, effectively, whether when the applicant signed his contract of employment, he knew or must have known that it contained a salary increase, quite inconsistent with salary increases which had been granted to others, and that the words in the contract were inconsistent with the figure.

	It may well be that this is the sort of case where the perceptions of the experienced lay representatives who sit both in the Industrial Tribunal and in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, would have been of considerable importance in the determination of the disputes between the parties. It is essentially for that reason, and a sense of unease which we have as a result of the submissions made to us by Mr Soor, that we are of the view that the matter should go ahead for a full hearing.

	Mr Soor also argued that there was patent ambiguity in this case. He should be allowed to argue that, although we have to say that none of us found it easy to accept as an argument, bearing in mind the tribunal’s finding that the applicant did not know and or suspect or ought to have known that the contract contained an error. That being so, if objectively one looked at the contract, one would not see ambiguity or conflict between the figure and the written words. 

	Mr Soor wishes to argue also that the decision was perverse, and we think that we should not shut him out from arguing all these points at the full hearing.

	We, of course, give no indication one way or the other as to what the outcome of the appeal will be. 

	We think that this is a case where it would be helpful if the learned Chairman was to provide us with the Notes of Evidence. The decision was given on 9th December 1997, and I formally express the hope that this request will not cause too much inconvenience to him. It was a day’s hearing and no more.

	If the learned Chairman is of the view that there is anything that he wishes to add to the decision in its present form, then in the circumstances we would be minded to accept any extended reasons that he wished to give. We do regard his present decision, albeit under the rubric of summary reasons, as being one which is sufficiently full for us to deal with as it stands, but obviously we do not wish to be unfair to Mr Peters, and if he has anything further to add, he should be given an opportunity of doing so; at the same time, no doubt, as he sends us the Notes of Evidence.

	It is a Category B case. It will last, I imagine, not more than an hour and a half.