United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 1082_94_0602

Appeal No. EAT/1082/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 6 February 1995

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

MRS M L BOYLE

MR J A SCOULLER

---

MR P L GALPIN          APPELLANT

RYE ST ANTONY SCHOOL          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant IN PERSON


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: Mr Galpin was a teacher at the Rye St Antony School ("the School"). There was an incident after the end of term party, just before Christmas in 1993. Subsequent to that Mr Galpin wrote a number of letters to the School. The Industrial Tribunal, who saw those letters when the matter came to them in due course, found the letters bizarre and they contained a number of offensive remarks in relation to the headmistress of the School.

At the start of the new term having been faced with those letters, the School decided to dismiss Mr Galpin. Mr Galpin, as he was entitled to do, commenced proceedings before an Industrial Tribunal complaining he was wrongfully dismissed. His proceedings were started in February 1994. The school's Notice of Appearance was dated 1 March 1994 and there was a hearing before the Reading Industrial Tribunal on 14 October 1994. The decision of the Reading Tribunal was unanimous that the application for unfair dismissal failed. Paragraph 10 of the Extended Reasons reads:

"The Tribunal does not consider that Mr Galpin would have been dismissed but for his writing the letters. Their effect was to break down irretrievably the relationship of trust and confidence which should have existed between himself and Miss Jones and the school. The Tribunal considers that to be some other substantial reason as defined in Section 57(1)(b)".

That was a reference to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 to which the Tribunal had referred in the previous paragraph.

Mr Galpin addressed us for some 15 minutes as to why the decision of the Tribunal was wrong and contained findings of facts which were perverse. We have carefully listened to all that he has to say, but we are satisfied that what Mr Galpin wishes to do is to mount an appeal against findings of fact which were within the province of the Industrial Tribunal to find.

In these circumstances, such an appeal has no hope of success and must be dismissed at this stage. We will therefore, while thanking Mr Galpin for his submissions, dismiss this appeal.