United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 1281_95_1705

Appeal No. EAT/1281/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 17th May 1996

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK

MISS A MACKIE OBE

MR R SAUNDERS OBE

---

MR B L BORKWOOD          APPELLANT

MARKS CLUB          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR B L BORKWOOD

(in person)


 


JUDGE CLARK: Mr Borkwood was employed by the respondent as a chef de partie vegetable section between August 1984 and a date on or after 24th May 1995.

The precise date on which his employment ended is not capable of final resolution since the Industrial Tribunal hearing his complaint of unfair dismissal concluded that the contract had been frustrated in circumstances where he had been sentenced to three months imprisonment on 24th May 1995 due to his persistent refusal to pay the Community Charge or Poll Tax.

Against that decision he now appeals. We have not found it easy to follow the appellant's arguments, which have little bearing on the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, but we are quite satisfied that on the facts as found it was open to the tribunal to conclude that the contract had been frustrated, so that there was no dismissal. Further, we cannot detect any error of law in the tribunal's alternative findings that if there was a dismissal it was for some other substantial reason and was fair, or in the further alternative that even if he was unfairly dismissed he contributed to his dismissal to the extent of 100% and is entitled to no compensation. It seems to us that the Industrial Tribunal's approach is entirely consistent with the judgment of the Court of Appeal in FC Shepherd & Co Ltd v Jerom [1986] ICR 802, an authority to which the Industrial Tribunal was directed.

This is a preliminary hearing held to determine whether or the appeal raises an arguable point of law which would go to a full appeal hearing. In our view, no point of law is disclosed and accordingly the appeal must be dismissed.