United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 252_93_1402

Appeal No. EAT/252/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 14 February 1994

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

MR P DAWSON OBE

MR J C RAMSAY

---

MR M S QUINN          APPELLANT

DOWTY AEROSPACE (GLOUCESTER) LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant IN PERSON


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: There was a hearing before the Industrial Tribunal at Bristol on 20 January 1993 when the Tribunal unanimously decided that the compensation awarded to the Applicant should be reduced by one-half but that there should be no order for compensation. At that hearing the Applicant appeared in person and the employer was represented by Mr Nicholas of the Engineering Employers' Western Association. By a letter dated 17 February 1993 the Applicant requested a review of the Tribunal's reserved decision as to the issue of remedy and compensation which had been sent to the parties on 1 February 1993. That review was refused for the reasons which the Chairman gave.

Mr Quinn seeks to appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal. The basic grounds of his appeal are that he did not have the evidence before the Tribunal which he would have liked to have had and to an extent he was taken by surprise by some of the evidence which the employer produced at the hearing. We have some sympathy with him, because it is always difficult for an Applicant particularly when he is in person to react to the situation in the way that somebody who has been in a Court before reacts. At the end of the day, however, it is for the Applicant to get his case and to present his case on the day in question and there is nothing an Appeal Court can do when there has been what appears to have been a full and fair hearing below and there is a reasoned decision going some length into the Applicant's case. Further, in the review papers, there is a further indication that the Chairman has been very fully into the matter.

It seems to us that Mr Quinn's appeal must be doomed to failure; in those circumstances it would be wrong for us to let the appeal go forward. In the circumstances, on this ex parte hearing, we are dismissing Mr Quinn's appeal but we thank him very much for the assistance he has given us in preparing his Skeleton Argument and in his address to us.