Appeal No.	 EAT/845/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 29 November 1996

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
SIR GAVIN LAIRD CBE
MR J A SCOULLER

MRS G MARTIN	APPELLANT

LOWNDES LAMBERT GROUP LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR R DRAKE
(of Counsel)
Appearing under the 
Employment Law Appeal
Advice Scheme	

	JUDGE D M LEVY QC:	This is an ex parte application by Mrs G. Martin.  She wishes to appeal against a decision given by an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Reading on 1 May 1996, when there was a unanimous decision that she was unfairly dismissed.  The Tribunal declined to make an order for reinstatement or re-engagement; it held that she was not entitled to a redundancy award; she had already received a basic award.  It held that she was entitled to a compensatory award of £843.91.  It held that the Recoupment Regulations did not apply.  The name “Summary Reasons” was converted to “Extended Reasons” by a Certificate of Correction dated 17 June 1996.  The Reasons were sent to the parties on 17 May 1996.

	After she had received the notification Mrs Martin wrote to the Industrial Tribunal seeking a review of the decision on the grounds that she had new evidence which might have effected her obtaining alternative employment with the Respondents in Norwich.  That application for review, we understand, the Tribunal orally to have acknowledged receipt of, but that no steps have been taken for the review to be carried out.  We do not know why no letter was sent to the Applicant, the Appellant here, acknowledging receipt of her request for a review.  We do not know why the review has not been carried out by this date, though we know that a Notice of Appeal was lodged here on 26 July 1996 in order to preserve the appeal so far as it has to be made within due time.

	Mr Drake has been kind enough to assist us under the ELAAS scheme this morning.  He has submitted that, as Mrs Martin has made an application for the taking of new evidence, it would be more appropriate for the review to be carried out before anything happens on her appeal.

	He submits that, if the review is successful, no appeal may be necessary.  On the other hand if the review is not successful, it would be necessary for this Tribunal to consider, on the ex-parte system which has been introduced, whether it is appropriate for the matter to go forward.  
	The Employment Appeal Tribunal is anxious to get appeals listed and heard as soon as possible.  The failure to carry out the review, or indeed, to set a hearing date for it, does not help this Tribunal in carrying out its objectives.  We would hope that the review can be completed well before 17 February 1997.  What we intend therefore to do is to adjourn the preliminary hearing ex-parte for it to come up before another panel at this Tribunal on 17 February or such earlier date, if by then the review has been completed and an earlier date can be found for the listing of it.