United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 335_94_1801

Appeal No. EAT/335/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 18 January 1995

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MISS A D MADDOCKS

MR R H PHIPPS

---

MRS V GREENWAY          APPELLANT

HAWKINS BOOK & CARD CENTRE          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR

REPRESENTATION ON

BEHALF OF THE

APPELANTS


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is the Preliminary Hearing of an Appeal from the Decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Hull on the 10th January 1994.

They heard a complaint of Unfair Dismissal brought by Mrs Veronica Greenway against her former employer, Mrs D Hawkins (retired), trading as Hawkins Book and Card Centre. Mrs Greenway had been employed as a shop assistant cleaner by the Respondent from January 1988 until she was dismissed on 11th August 1993.

For the Summary Reasons notified to the parties on the 14th January 1994 the Tribunal unanimously decided that Mrs Greenway was unfairly dismissed, but was not entitled to re-instatement, re-engagement or compensation.

The next step taken by Mrs Greenway was to seek a review of the Decision from the Industrial Tribunal. She stated she did not agree with the reasons why she had not been awarded any compensation. The Application was rejected by the Chairman on the 16th February 1994, as it did not disclose any grounds on which an Application for Review could be granted.

There were then complications in relation to the Appeal. Only Summary Reasons had been given. Mrs Greenway was out of time for asking for Full Reasons and was out of time in bringing an Appeal against the original Decision.

The way in which we have dealt with this (and the position has been notified to

Mrs Greenway) is that her appeal was in time for the purposes of complaining of the refusal of a review by the Industrial Tribunal. This matter has therefore come before us as an Appeal from that refusal.

Having regard to the fact that Mrs Greenway has been representing herself, we have read all of the detailed submissions she has made at various times in these proceedings. She has made a detailed submission dated 18th February 1994 and, almost a year later, supplemented it by a 40-page submission. We have read this. We have to say it contains a large amount of material which is not relevant to the issue before the Tribunal. Her complaint was that they had failed to award her any compensation, having found unfair dismissal.

It is clear from reading the Decision that the reason why dismissal was found to be unfair was a procedural one, not substantive unfairness. It is also relevant to look at the provisions of Section 74(1) of the [1978] Act, from which it appears that the amount of compensatory award is of such amount as the Tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances, having regard to the loss sustained by the complainant in consequence of the dismissal in so far as that loss is attributable to action taken by the employer. Under sub-section 6:

"Where the tribunal finds that the dismissal was to any extent caused or contributed to by an action of the complainant it shall reduce the amount of the compensatory award by such proportion as it considers just and equitable having regard to the finding."

It is clear that the Tribunal thought that there should be no compensation because

Mrs Greenway was wholly to blame for the circumstances which led to her dismissal.

In our view, no arguable point of law is raised in the Appeal by Mrs Greenway from the refusal of the Industrial Tribunal to review their earlier decision that, although she was unfairly dismissed, she should not be entitled to re-instatement, re-engagement or compensation.

In those circumstances, there is no point in this matter proceeding to a Full Hearing. The Appeal is dismissed as unarguable in law.