Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Wrench v Tomkinsons Carpets Ltd [1993] UKEAT 170_92_1502 (15 February 1993)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/170_92_1502.html
Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 170_92_1502
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
I N T E R N A L
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MR E HAMMOND OBE
MR J C RAMSAY
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is a case where Mr Wrench is appealing against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Birmingham on the 29th October 1991 under the Chairmanship of Mr Haslam, on which occasion the Tribunal unanimously decided that Mr Wrench had been fairly dismissed by his employers, Tomkinsons Carpets Limited. He had been employed there as a table operative and cleaner from June 1985 until his dismissal on the 15th August 1990.
This is an appeal by way of a preliminary hearing, we seek to examine the judgment given by the Tribunal to see whether there is any error of law in the decision.
Mr Wrench, unhappily for him, has suffered from a psychological condition which lies behind this whole story. He has been good enough to send us written submissions in support of his appeal but has not felt able to attend before us today. We have read those written submissions with care, we have also had regard to his Notice of Appeal in which he alleged that he had been victimised.
The history is a somewhat lengthy one for the problems which arose but it discloses, in a carefully reasoned judgment, the care with which the Company dealt with the problems and the situation in which Mr Wrench found himself. It does not seem to us that it is of benefit to anyone to recite this sad story; it is all there set out. There was absence from work and return to work, doctors were involved at virtually every stage, both the doctor who was advising and treating Mr Wrench himself and also the Company Doctor and indeed, specific questions were put to each of them. It is quite clear that the diagnosis was a serious one, the prognosis was such that, in the circumstances, the decision to dismiss on the basis of capability was, we think, inevitable, as did the Tribunal. The point is this, the Tribunal looked at all the facts, applied the law and decided that the Company, Mr Wrench's employers, had behaved, I think one could say, impeccably throughout in this case. The greatest care and consideration, sympathy and understanding were shown throughout, and we are quite unable, despite the points raised by Mr Wrench in his written submissions to discern any error of law. This is a case where the appeal must be dismissed at this stage, and it is.