United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 454_95_0310

Appeal No. EAT/454/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 3 October 1995

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY

MR S M SPRINGER MBE

MR R N STRAKER

---

MR & MRS J DEWHIRST          APPELLANTS

MRS M J JACKSON          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants NO APPEARANCES OR REPRESENTATIONS


 


MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: This is a Preliminary Hearing of the appeal of Mr & Mrs Dewhirst who were the Respondents in an application to the Industrial Tribunal on behalf of Mrs Jackson for a redundancy payment. On 12 January 1995 at Middlesbrough the Industrial Tribunal ruled that Mrs Jackson was entitled to a redundancy payment and calculated that entitlement in the sum of £980.10 as set out in paragraph 5 of the decision. Mr & Mrs Dewhirst now appeal to this Tribunal. They do not appeal against the finding of an entitlement to redundancy payment. Their appeal is limited to the issue of quantum. The calculation of the Industrial Tribunal was that Mrs Jackson was entitled to six weeks pay and that a week's pay should be calculated by averaging out the twelve weeks earnings prior to termination; producing a calculation of £163.35 x 6 = £980.10.

It seems from the papers before us to be incontrovertible that Mrs Jackson received less than the six weeks notice to which she was entitled. Accordingly the calculation date employed by the Tribunal was the appropriate one. Mr & Mrs Dewhirst seek to question that finding, essentially by asserting that proper notice was given. However, having considered all the documents, including the Originating Application, the Notice of Appearance and the findings of the Tribunal, it seems to us that it is not possible to go behind the factual findings of the Tribunal as to what notice was appropriate and when it was given. In all these circumstances the Tribunal applied the correct calculation date and the arithmetic based thereon can not be faulted. In those circumstances it seems to us that Mr & Mrs Dewhirst do not have an arguable case on any point of law before this Tribunal and accordingly their appeal is dismissed.