Appeal No.	 EAT/198/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 20 March 1998

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
MR K M HACK JP
MS B SWITZER

MAGNA HOUSING ASSOCIATION LTD	APPELLANTS

(1)	MR M L TURNER 
(2)	MR M J RAISON 	RESPONDENTS
(3) LANDSCAPING & GROUNDS MAINTENANCE LTD	

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY  HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR R MAWHINNEY
(of Counsel)
Messrs Clarke & Co
Commercial Law Chambers
Roddis House
Old Christchurch Road
Bournemouth
BH1 1LG	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):	The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law in an appeal which Magna Housing Association Ltd wish to maintain against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at Exeter on 12th November 1997. 

	The tribunal’s reasons are set out in a decision which was sent to the parties on 25th November 1997 and the first thing that we wish to say is that all three members of the Employment Appeal Tribunal would wish to pay tribute to the care with which this decision has been expressed. In many ways it is a model of its kind.

	The case concerns the application of the Acquired Rights Directive and the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations to the facts set out in the extended reasons. 

	It is submitted to us that it is arguable that the Industrial Tribunal have misdirected themselves in law as to the application of the Süzen decision; and secondly, that the Employment Appeal Tribunal should consider the question as to whether what would otherwise have been a transfer of an undertaking ceases to be so in circumstances where the relevant employees have exercised their right not to transfer.

	Without in any way giving any kind of encouragement to the appellants to believe that they will succeed on the full hearing of their appeal, we are prepared to say that both aspects of their Notice of Appeal are arguable. We give no indication one way or the other as to the outcome of this appeal, because of course we have not had an opportunity of hearing from the other parties to it.

	We are concerned about the position of the employees themselves who were the two applicants before the Industrial Tribunal. They were awarded what I am sure were perceived to be reasonably significant sums of money which are as yet unpaid. For this reason, we would like this appeal to be taken before us as quickly as may practicably be done. 

	I would wish this case to be listed before myself, because it may be that this will be an occasion in which some further guidance can be given to Industrial Tribunals as to the correct approach to the Süzen decision. I would estimate that the appeal will last half a day, bearing in mind that there may be three parties who wish to make representations to us. We do not need any Notes of Evidence as far as one can tell at the present time, and I therefore would wish that to be included in the Order, no Notes of Evidence. There are no other directions except it should be listed as a Category A case because of the potentiality for guidance.

	I grant leave for the Notice of Appeal to be amended in the form in which it appears in our papers.