Alan Christopher Charles Meek Appellant) v City of Birmingham District Council Respondent)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeTHE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE BINGHAM,LORD JUSTICE RALPH GIBSON
Judgment Date18 February 1987
Judgment citation (vLex)[1987] EWCA Civ J0218-4
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Docket Number87/0139
Date18 February 1987
Alan Christopher Charles Meek
(Applicant) Appellant
and
City of Birmingham District Council
(Respondent) Respondent

[1987] EWCA Civ J0218-4

Before:

The Master of the Rolls

(Sir John Donaldson)

Lord Justice Ralph Gibson

and

Lord Justice Bingham

87/0139

EAT/58/86

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

(MR. JUSTICE POPPLEWELL)

Royal Courts of Justice.

MR. F. PHILPOTT (instructed by Messrs. Middleton Dummer & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

MR. P. ELIAS (instructed by the City Solicitor's Department) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

1

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS
2

I will ask Lord Justice Bingham to deliver the first judgment.

LORD JUSTICE BINGHAM
3

This is an appeal by Mr. Alan Meek against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal given on the 1st May, 1986. On that day the EAT allowed an appeal by the City of Birmingham District Council against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal that Mr. Meek had been unfairly dismissed. The EAT ordered that the matter should be remitted to a differently constituted Industrial Tribunal for a re-hearing. The EAT refused leave to appeal, but leave to appeal was later given by this court.

4

Mr. Meek was a driver, whose duties included the delivery of material to building sites. It appears, not surprisingly, to be clear that he was not permitted to help himself to building materials belonging to the Council, nor to use the Council's vehicles for his own purposes. The Council took the view that he had broken those rules, and on the 21st December, 1984 suspended him.

5

There followed a disciplinary hearing on the 3rd January, 1985, conducted by a Mr. Hopkins, who was a Principal Assistant in the Direct Labour Office of the Council. The hearing was evidently adjourned on the 3rd January, 1985 while Mr. Hopkins made further inquiries. It was resumed on the 16th January, 1985. A decision was then taken to dismiss Mr. Meek, that decision being notified to him by letter on the same day. There was, according to the Council's procedure, an appeal against that decision to dismiss, which was heard on the 9th September, 1985, but Mr. Meek's appeal was dismissed.

6

The case was heard by the Industrial Tribunal on the 20th September, and the decision was registered on the 20th November, 1985. By that decision the Tribunal held that Mr. Meek had been unfairly dismissed and ordered that he be re-engaged.

7

On appeal to the EAT against that decision a number of criticisms were made of the reasons which the Industrial Tribunal had given for its decision. In the course of the EAT's judgment, given by Mr. Justice Popplewell, a series of detailed criticisms was made of the reasons given by the Tribunal. It is I think for present purposes sufficient to refer only to the summary of the EAT's reasons where Mr. Justice Popplewell said this:

"We have considered the submissions made on both sides and finally have come to the conclusion that this decision is indeed flawed by the wrong application of the tribunal to the questions which they had to ask themselves, by the absence of factual determination which would have enabled the parties to know what it was that they could or should have done, and by the introduction of matters which do not seem to us to have particular relevance to their decision."

8

It is unnecessary, I think, to say anything about the first and third of those reasons. Argument in this court has concentrated on the second, namely that the decision of the Industrial Tribunal lacked the factual determination which would have enabled the parties to know what it was that they could or should have done, and we have been referred to authority on the question of the extent to which Industrial Tribunals are required to give reasons for their decisions. The overriding rule...

To continue reading

Request your trial
314 cases
  • Harry Ralph Adeane Martineau and Others v Ministry of Justice
    • United Kingdom
    • Employment Appeal Tribunal
    • 17 June 2015
    ...what the reasons should deal with. Those provisions largely reflect the established case law such as Meek v City of Birmingham Council [1987] IRLR 250. As Bingham LJ, as he then was, observed in paragraph 8 of that judgment, the “parties are entitled to be told why they have won or In the p......
  • City Of Edinburgh Council V. Kamaljit Kaur
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Session
    • 23 April 2013
    ...the concepts of time bar, relative to the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and "striking out" on the merits (Meek v Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250). She had accepted that there was material before her from which it might be ascertained that there was a continuing act. Having done so, t......
  • Ms M Morgan v Buckinghamshire Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Employment Appeal Tribunal
    • Invalid date
    ...its decision was not Meek-compliant in this respect (referring to the guidance in Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250). 39. Ms Cornaglia submitted that proper consideration of the additional strand of the section 15 complaint relating to dyslexia could have made a dif......
  • Bury Metropolitan Borough Council HS 1350 2010
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
    • 4 November 2010
    ...myself, I have always regarded the judgment of Sir Thomas Bingham MR (as he then was) in this court in Meek v Birmingham City Council [1987] IRLR 250 (even though it substantially antedates the incorporation into English Law of ECHR) as the definitive exposition of the attitude superior cou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill How Judges Decide Cases: Reading, Writing and Analysing Judgments. 2nd Edition Contents
    • 29 August 2018
    ...Regional Health Authority [1984] 1 WLR 634, [1985] 1 All ER 635, (1984) 128 SJ 317, HL 167 Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250, CA 91 Mesher v Mesher and Hall (Note) [1980] 1 All ER 126, CA 204 Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Hett, Stubbs & Kemp (a firm) [1979] Ch 384, [1......
  • Writing Judgments, Decisions and Awards
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill How Judges Decide Cases: Reading, Writing and Analysing Judgments. 2nd Edition Contents
    • 29 August 2018
    ...This follows the general practice, following a directions hearing, of the chairman setting out the 17 Meek v Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250. 92 How Judges Decide Cases: Reading, Writing and Analysing Judgments orders made on that occasion, with short reasons showing why dispute......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT