United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR S K AJIKAWO (In Person)


 


MR JUSTICE LINDSAY: We have before us, as a preliminary hearing, an appeal by Mr S K Ajikawo in the matter (Mr) B C Oki v S K Ajikawo t/a S K Ajikawo Consulting. Mr Ajikawo is the erstwhile employer and he appears before us today in person.

On 24 June 1998 there was a decision of the Industrial Tribunal at Stratford Chaired by Mrs T J Mason sitting alone. At the hearing before Mrs Mason, Mr Oki, the Applicant below, had been in person but no-one had appeared for the Respondent, Mr Ajikawo. The decision of the Tribunal was that the Respondent, S K Ajikawo, made unlawful deductions from the Applicant's wages of £2,292.84 and the Respondent was ordered to pay that sum to the Applicant.

Because Mr Ajikawo had not attended, evidence was heard only from the Oki side, indeed, I think, only from Mr Oki. A very limited issue was before the Tribunal. What the Tribunal say, at the end of their paragraph 2, is:

"As a result, this hearing has been confined to the issue of whether Mr Ajikawo made unlawful deductions from Mr Oki's wages and should be ordered to pay a sum to Mr Oki."

The Industrial Tribunal held that Mr Oki had been employed by Mr Ajikawo from 3 November 1997 to 31 December 1997. They held that Mr Ajikawo gave two cheques to Mr Oki as pay, that the first one had been dishonoured and that the second one had not been presented because Mr Oki knew there was nothing in the account to meet it. Accordingly, the Industrial Tribunal concluded, in their paragraph 5:

"Conclusion. It is clear on the facts that Mr Ajikawo has not paid £2,292.84 wages due to Mr Oki, that amounts to a deduction which was not authorised and accordingly I order Mr Ajikawo to pay that sum to Mr Oki. He should do so forthwith. Mr Oki has not pursued his claim for pay in lieu of notice and I make no award of damages in that regard."

Then, on 8 July 1998, Mr Ajikawo asked for a review of the decision of 24 June. On 23 July that Application for Review was refused. The Chairman held that the request was out of time - as, indeed, it was - and, in any event, held that the Application had no reasonable prospect of success.

On the same day, 23 July, Mr Ajikawo signed a Notice of Appeal and he seeks to raise a whole host of issues which, if capable of being raised at all, would have required evidence to have been given on the particular subjects concerned and submissions relating to those subjects to have been made at the hearing on 24 June 1998. For example; how long had Mr Oki worked for Mr Ajikawo? Was he really just on probation, or was he employed in some other way? Did Mr Oki tell the truth in his evidence? Was Mr Oki incompetent? Had Mr Oki deceived Mr Ajikawo? There are a number of issues in his Notice of Appeal and touched on orally which Mr Ajikawo wishes to raise and he has produced documents to us which were not produced at the Industrial Tribunal.

Quite what the result would have been had Mr Ajikawo given evidence below and had produced documents below we cannot, of course, guess at. It is not our business to do so. What we are looking at are simply questions of law arising out of the decision below. An appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal does not provide opportunity to go over facts which could have been dealt with below and still less does it so provide at the behest of a party who has failed to attend below and who was neither represented nor adduced evidence below.

Simply looking at the question of whether we see any error of law in the decision of 24 June, we find no error of law and, accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal.