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 >> Gleadle v Lucas Autocentres [1993] UKEAT 893_92_0110 (1 October 1993)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/893_92_0110.html
Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 893_92_0110, [1993] UKEAT 893_92_110
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J HULL QC
MRS E HART
MISS A P VALE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
JUDGE J HULL QC: Mr Gleadle, the Appellant, has written to us saying that he does not want to attend and would like us to deal with the matter in his absence. He is a gentleman who applied to an Industrial Tribunal and that Industrial Tribunal found that he had been unfairly dismissed and that he had contributed to his dismissal. I do not need to go into the details at all because they do not relate to the subject matter of the appeal.
It was suggested that in assessing compensation the Tribunal should take account of the fact, alleged by the employers, that Mr Gleadle had earned some money during the period in which he was unemployed following his dismissal. A letter was obtained by the employers in which it was said that Mr Gleadle had done some work for the person who wrote the letter. In that letter no particulars were given of the amount of work which had been done and so it was simply supporting the assertion that he had done some work.
The Tribunal put it like this, they say:
"a letter was produced from M & T Transmissions Limited signed by the managing director stating the applicant had worked on a casual basis between January and June 1992. No details of any sums received were specified. Both parties were given the chance to apply for an adjournment to call further evidence in connection with the truth or otherwise of this letter. Both parties stated that they were quite happy with the tribunal to deal with the matter giving such value to the letter as they thought fit."
the Tribunal then said:
"that the fairest way to deal with the matter is to treat the applicant's weekly loss as merely £141 and to ignore other bonuses and benefits to which he might have been entitled if he had remained in the employment of the respondent company."
So what they did in a very rough and ready way, at the request of the parties that they should proceed on this very limited material, was to say; well, we will allow the Applicant, in our calculations, his basic wage and eliminate any bonuses he might have earned because we say that it appears from this letter that he has done some work and earned some money and we are not given particulars of it.
Mr Gleadle appeals against the decision of the Tribunal saying that the letter is false and that he had not worked as alleged; and he says that the letter was obtained by dishonest means by his employers. One naturally notes those allegations with great regret; but the fact is that this letter, being obtained in this contentious matter, was put before the Tribunal and the Tribunal expressly said to the parties "do you want to adjourn so that this matter can be looked into". "No" said the parties, "please deal with the letter and give it such weight as you think right". In those circumstances it appears to us that on the basic principles on which appeals are conducted we cannot entertain this appeal and that no point of law is disclosed in the appeal. What is said is, in effect, that Mr Gleadle has changed his mind and now regrets inviting the Tribunal to consider this letter and give such weight to it as it thought right. But that is what he did, and people cannot blow hot and cold like that and at one moment ask a Tribunal or Court to proceed in a particular way and then appeal on the basis that the Court or Tribunal should not have proceeded in that way. If an unsupported letter is produced and put before a Tribunal then it may or may not be that that letter should be acted upon by the Tribunal. If the parties, or one of them, say, "I am not satisfied with this - I want this witness produced, I want to be able to call evidence about this myself" then of course the Tribunal must pay proper attention to that, but if the parties take a different view and says "undoubtedly this is rather a small matter; it does not seem terribly important and we just want it dealt with in a very rough and ready way" then they are, so to speak, stuck with that.
We do not think there is any point of law here at all and therefore this appeal must proceed no further and will be dismissed.