United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 966_95_2301

Appeal No. EAT/966/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 23 January 1996

HIS HONOUR JUDGE C SMITH QC

MISS J W COLLERSON

MR W MORRIS

---

LE MAITRE (SALES) LTD          APPELLANTS

MR C FREEMAN          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants MR C R JONES

(Personnel Consultant)

Professional Personnel Consultants Ltd

Godwin House

George Street

Huntingdon

Cambs. PE18 6BU


 


JUDGE SMITH QC: We are concerned now to deal with an application that is made by the Appellants Le Maitre (Sales) Ltd for leave to proceed to full hearing of an appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at London (South) on 6 January 1995, when they had to consider the amount of compensation for unfair dismissal. They decided that the Respondent, Mr Freeman, should be paid the sum of £8,696.05 in respect of a compensatory award. They have set out in their extended reasons how they arrive at that figure.

We have reminded ourselves that it is only necessary for the Appellant to establish that there is an arguable point of law, in order for us to hold that the matter should proceed to a full hearing. Mr Jones has limited his appeal to one part of the calculation, namely the estimated future loss of wages from taking the matter forward for one year from 6 January 1995. In other words, an estimated future loss of wages for the year 6 January 1995 to 5 January 1996; those being calculated by the Industrial Tribunal on the basis that there will be no increase in the £20,000 per annum salary being received by the Respondent from the new job which he had obtained on 20 September 1993. The submission is made to us that that is an unrealistic approach by the Industrial Tribunal, since there will always be, so it is submitted to us, some kind of an increment during that period. However, in our judgment this matter is really concluded by the plainest possible finding of fact by the Industrial Tribunal at paragraph 4(b) of the extended reasons in these terms:

"The Applicant then obtained a new job at £20,000 per annum being a £5,000 shortfall on his previous employment. [Then there is this crucial sentence] There is no prospect of any increase in this salary in the foreseeable future."...

It is to be noted that the same was true on the other side of the coin. Mr Berlenski, the Chairman of the Appellants, submitted that the salary which the Respondent would be earning had he remained with the Appellants would not have been increased. In times of recession and financial stringency this is a situation which commonly occurs.

In our judgment this matter is concluded against the Appellants by the clear findings of fact by the Industrial Tribunal. In our judgment such findings cannot be impugned on the grounds of being perverse. On the contrary, in our judgment there was material before the Industrial Tribunal which fully justified such conclusions of fact. Accordingly, we must dismiss this application.