United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 773_93_0202

Appeal No. EAT/773/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 2 February 1994

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MR K M HACK JP

MISS A MADDOCKS OBE

---

MRS D McGRAIL          APPELLANT

JOHN MOORES HOME SHOPPING SERVICES LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR

ON BEHALF OF

RESPONDENT


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This preliminary hearing is held in the absence of the Appellant who has written to the Tribunal by letter dated : 26 January 1994 stating that she is unable to attend the preliminary hearing and would like it to go ahead in her absence.

The appeal by Mrs McGrail is against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Liverpool on 2 August 1993. The Tribunal, for full reasons notified to the parties on 19 August 1993, decided unanimously on a preliminary point that it had no jurisdiction to hear Mrs McGrail's complaint of unfair dismissal.

The basis of their decision was that the claim had, in fact, been settled as a result of the intervention of the ACAS Officer and that there had come into existence an enforceable agreement to settle her claim against the Respondents, John Moores Home Shopping Services Ltd. In those circumstances, having regard to the provisions of Sections 134 and 140 of the 1978 Act, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction and Mrs McGrail was not entitled to have her claim of unfair dismissal heard by an Industrial Tribunal.

The decision was not welcomed by Mrs McGrail. On the 28 September she wrote a letter to this Tribunal which has been accepted as her notice of appeal. She said in that letter:

"I wish to ... appeal against the decision ..."

which was reached by the Industrial Tribunal in Liverpool

"In my opinion the chairman and tribunal members reached an unreasonable conclusion upon the facts ... presented before them."

The difficulty with Mrs McGrail's opinion is that it is clear from the voluminous letters which she has written setting out the nature of her complaints that she wishes to appeal against a finding of fact. Whether or not an enforceable agreement came into existence to settle her claim is a matter of fact. None of her numerous complaints reveal any error of law. This Tribunal only has jurisdiction to hear appeals on errors of law.

In those circumstances, there is no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. It will be dismissed without a full hearing.