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 >> Pace v Lyalvale Ltd [1993] UKEAT 629_92_2906 (29 June 1993)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/629_92_2906.html
Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 629_92_2906
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
I N T E R N A L
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUCKEY
MISS A MACKIE OBE
MRS P TURNER OBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR
REPRESENTATION ON
BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANT
MR JUSTICE TUCKEY: Following a hearing before the Industrial Tribunal in Birmingham on 11 May and 4 June 1992, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Pace's complaint of unfair dismissal succeeded. They found that he contributed to his dismissal to the extent of 75% and ordered his former employers, Lyalvale Ltd, to pay compensation to him in the sum of £839.42. He appeals to this Tribunal against the award of compensation. The Tribunal assessed compensation on the basis that he should have found alternative work within 6 months of his dismissal. The Appellant had given evidence that following his dismissal he had applied for between 50 and 100 jobs. The Tribunal disbelieved this evidence and assessed the compensation on the basis that there was a loss of earnings over a period of 6 months.
The appeal which Mr Pace launched was on the basis that he had during and indeed after the period covered by the compensatory award, been in receipt of unemployment benefit and had been able to satisfy his local Employment Office that he was unemployed and that he was looking for alternative employment.
Mr Pace has not attended today to pursue that appeal but it was listed for a Preliminary Hearing on the basis that if it was thought that it had no prospect of succeeding it should be dealt with summarily at this stage rather than go to a full hearing. We have considered the appeal and conclude that it has no prospect of success. The 6 month period was a perfectly reasonable period to take. It was a finding of fact that the Industrial Tribunal were entitled to make. Insofar as the appeal is based upon new evidence, it would have been for Mr Pace to show that such evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the hearing before the Tribunal. We do not know what he would say about that but it is apparent from the fact that he has now obtained such information from the Employment Service that it would have been available to him if he had so wished at the time of the hearing before the Tribunal. There would therefore have been no prospect of him being able to introduce that new evidence at this stage and for that reason also this appeal was bound to fail.
It is dismissed.