Author: Joe

Appeal No. EAT/261/92

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 15th February 1993

	Before

	THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)

	MR E HAMMOND OBE

	MR J C RAMSAY

MR D J SMITH	APPELLANT

OPALRANGE LIMITED	RESPONDENTS

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY
OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

For the Respondent	NO APPEARANCE BY OR
	ON BEHALF OF THE 
	RESPONDENT

	MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT):  This is an appeal by Mr D J Smith against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (South) under the Chairmanship of Mr Milton, who on the 6th February 1992, held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the Applicant's application.  His application was for a severance payment due to dismissal.  There was a complicated history behind this matter and the problem was, by whom was Mr Smith employed at the relevant date?  Was it Opalrange Ltd, who were cited as the Respondents?  Or was it another company whose name was Latham & Gray Ltd?  Both companies are now either insolvent or in receivership and there is no opportunity of obtaining any remedy, any satisfaction against either.  The Industrial Tribunal were looking to see who the employer was and also whether the claim could be substantiated within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal.

	Just before the hearing the Tribunal received a letter of the 4th October 1991 from a firm of solicitors, saying that the Respondents were insolvent, but raising other matters and the Tribunal might have been inclined to adjourn the matter to see what the precise position was.  However, as they found in paragraph 4, as follows:
"More importantly however it became clear that as at the date of the Applicant's dismissal on 30 April 1991 he was satisfied that all his outstanding claims to that date had been met by the Respondents.  He stated that he was given a stark choice between accepting a final settlement payment of £7,500 or alternatively being paid on a monthly basis for the currency of his six month notice, but with a real risk that the company would not survive the notice period and in the result he would lose out."

So there is the issue that was facing him as found by the Industrial Tribunal, and they continue:
"The Applicant did indeed accept the payment of £7,500 albeit subsequently protesting that he was due further sums in addition to that figure."

They then looked to see the basis of those further claims, they found that they should be in the County Court or the High Court, as the case may be and rely on the decision in the House of Lords of Delaney v. Staples namely, that damages in lieu of notice, or damages of any kind are not within the Wages Act, they therefore declined jurisdiction.

	We are unable to discern any error of law in the approach by the Industrial Tribunal.  It seems to us that Mr Smith was unfortunate in the situation in which he found himself but happily it seems that he is now employed in Belgium and he has written indicating that he would not attend this appeal, but intended no disrespect.  We quite understand his situation and we hope that his employment and his position now is more satisfactory than it was in the past, but we are unable to help him there is no error of law here and this appeal must be dismissed.

© Copyright 1993

EAT/261/92

EAT/261/92

	‑  ‑