United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 1288_95_1505

Appeal No. EAT/1288/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 15 May 1996

HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE QC

MR E HAMMOND OBE

MR R H PHIPPS

---

MRS J WORSWICK T/A FOSCOTE DESIGN          APPELLANT

MR D ORCHARD          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MS J SACHER

(Solicitor) appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


JUDGE B HARGROVE QC: On 31 October 1995 the Industrial Tribunal found that the employee had been dismissed by reason of redundancy. The employer denied dismissal. She said that he had been laid off because of shortage of work and he had agreed to work on a part-time basis. She gave him a letter saying:

"... I shall have to terminate your employment."

He was given a P.45 with his last pay packet. The employer says that he wanted a letter of dismissal so that it could be provided for the purposes of obtaining unemployment benefit. She also says that on 12 August she had offered to the employee that he could have his job back. At that stage, of course, it was outside the four-week period and the employee declined.

The point that it put forward by way of appeal is that the Tribunal is said to have taken into account matters which it should not have taken into account because when the employer's solicitors replied to the IT1 form, they admitted dismissal and admitted that it was on the basis of redundancy. The solicitors then wrote saying that that was an error and amending the form. The Tribunal addressed it in this way:

"The Notice of Appearance was subsequently amended to state that the applicant was not dismissed and to delete the word "REDUNDANCY" from Box 3. The respondent says that the original Notice of Appearance was prepared erroneously by her solicitor and the admission that the applicant was dismissed and that the reason for dismissal was redundancy were made in error."

The Tribunal then goes on to consider the matter in more detail in these terms:

"Again, in the Notice of Appearance that was originally put in by the respondent she admitted the dismissal and said specifically that it was on the grounds of redundancy. We take account of what the respondent says about that document having been prepared incorrectly by her solicitors but nevertheless it is a factor which points away from the veracity of her evidence and points to the applicant's evidence being the more satisfactory."

It must be borne in mind that that passage does not deal with the question of the letter which was undoubtedly written by the solicitors on 6 October.

However, taking that into account this was a situation where there were three documents, including the notice of appearance, which were of dubious assistance to the Respondent employer. First, there was a clear letter saying:

"I shall have to terminate your employment."

Secondly, there was a P.45 and, finally, there was this document.

The Tribunal would indeed have been remiss if it had not considered that document and, of course, considered also the account given by the employer for its presence.

In all the circumstances, no reasonably arguable point of law occurs in this case and this appeal is dismissed.