United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1993] UKEAT 587_93_1811

Appeal No. EAT/587/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 18th November 1993

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MR D G DAVIES

MR J C RAMSAY

---

MR P K NICHOLAS          APPELLANT

ALPHA ROOFING LIMITED          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY

OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by Mr P K Nicholas against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at Norwich on the 19th February and 9th March 1993.

Mr Nicholas has taken out a Notice of Appeal against the decision and he has notified the court, by a fax this morning, that he wishes the appeal to be dealt with in his absence.

We have considered the papers which show that it was the unanimous decision of the Tribunal that Mr Nicholas had been unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy. But the Tribunal went on to decide that any monetary award should be limited to the amount of his basic award of £1,845. An application under the Wages Act was dismissed.

In his Notice of Appeal, dated 28th June, Mr Nicholas seeks to spell out what he claims are errors of law on the part of the Tribunal, in finding that redundancy was the principal cause of his dismissal. He raises various questions of errors of law on the part of the Tribunal in its consideration of whether the dismissal was fair, having regard to the standard of reasonableness in Section 57(3) of the 1978 Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act. He also raises, in subsequent paragraphs, objections in relation to the findings of the Tribunal on the evidence.

We have considered all the complaints in the Notice of Appeal in the context of the detailed reasons given by the Industrial Tribunal. It seems to us that Mr Nicholas is essentially seeking to raise points on the appeal which cannot be regarded as points of law at all. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with them.

For those reasons this appeal is dismissed.