Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Savar v McAndie & Anor [1997] UKEAT 640_97_1911 (19 November 1997)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/640_97_1911.html
Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 640_97_1911
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR R H PHIPPS
MRS P TURNER OBE
MR R SAVAR APPELLANT
(1) MS MCANDIE
(2) CHILTERN LODGE RESIDENTIAL HOMES LTD RESPONDENTS
| APPELLANT | |
(2) CHILTERN LODGE RESIDENTIAL HOMES LTD |
RESPONDENTS |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE
| For the Appellant | NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT |
JUDGE PETER CLARK: This is an appeal by the first respondent before the Bedford Industrial Tribunal, Mr Savar, against a decision of a Chairman, Mr P Willins sitting alone on 19th February 1997, whereby he awarded a sum of £892.94 to the applicant, Mrs McAndie on her complaint of unlawful deduction from her wages together with an order for £90 costs in her favour. The second respondent named in the Originating Application, Chiltern Lodge Residential Home also failed to appear before the Industrial Tribunal as did the appellant.
The applicant was employed as Deputy Matron at the Chiltern Lodge Residential Home between February 1996 and 28th August 1996. Before the tribunal Chairman she contended that she was employed by Mr Savar himself and not by a limited company which in correspondence he had contended was her true employer. On the evidence before him, the Chairman accepted that case and made the order against Mr Savar personally.
Against that decision Mr Savar now appeals.
We have considered the written submission which he has put before us. He has not attended this appeal hearing either. He contends that the applicant was employed by the limited company not by him personally; that he has been wrongly subjected to Industrial Tribunal proceedings by the applicant. It is all a terrible mistake.
Unfortunately he misunderstands the jurisdiction of this appeal tribunal. We do not have a general power of review of Industrial Tribunal decisions, we can only interfere where an error of law is shown.
What the appellant seeks to do is to reargue the factual question as to who was the applicant's employer. The time to raise that evidential point was in front of the Industrial Tribunal. He chose not to attend the hearing, although he knew that he was a named respondent. The Industrial Tribunal Chairman accepted the applicant's evidence, there being none to contradict it, that she was employed by Mr Savar. We cannot see any grounds for upsetting that finding of fact. Accordingly we shall dismiss this appeal.