United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

1. This is the Preliminary Hearing of an appeal by Mr D R Barry ("the Appellant") in proceedings commenced by an Originating Application to an Employment Tribunal dated
   8 September 2000 naming the Student Support Centre (Bucks) Limited as the Respondent. The Respondent's notice of appearance was entered on 4 October 2000. There was a hearing before an Employment Tribunal at Reading on 4 and 5 June. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that the Applicant was not dismissed by the Respondents but resigned his position. Accordingly his complaint of disability discrimination failed and his complaint about dismissal failed. An application for costs made by the Respondents was refused. At the hearing below both parties were represented by counsel.
2. On 26 July 2001 a Notice of Appeal from that decision was received by the Employment Appeal Tribunal which runs to two pages. In our bundle we are not shown who was responsible for lodging that, but we have seen a letter from solicitors, Baily Gibson, dated
   7 December 2001 stating that that firm wished to consider themselves without instructions from the Appellant and accordingly the name of the firm is to be removed from the record. The letter stated that the firm would not be attending this Preliminary Hearing. The Employment Tribunal attempted to track Mr Barry direct but found that his number was ex-directory.
3. In these circumstances we have felt it appropriate to look at the appeal on the papers which we have had. They do not include any skeleton argument. The grounds of appeal read as follows:

"6 The grounds upon which this appeal is brought are that the employment tribunal erred in law in that:

a. Their decision that the Appellant was not dismissed by the Respondents but resigned was perverse. The employment tribunal failed to properly take into account the following facts when assessing the evidence of the parties:

i. The Respondents stated that they knew of the Appellant's multiple sclerosis and accounted for it in his employment at a time when the Appellant was unaware that he had multiple sclerosis nor any idea as to what multiple sclerosis was;

ii. The employment tribunal failed to give the proper weight to the evidence of what the Appellant had told his doctor;

iii. The employment tribunal speculated as to what legal advice would have been given to the Appellant after the termination of his employment

iv. The employment tribunal stated that they did not believe the Appellant but provided no proper grounds for that opinion;"

Although the Notice of Appeal of appeal says 'a. i.-iv.' there does not appear to be anything further in the Notice of Appeal.

4. All the matters raised in that Notice of Appeal raise matters of fact which were before the Tribunal. We have all carefully read the Extended Reasons given to the parties, which were an unanimous decision of the Tribunal. We are satisfied that the Tribunal, at a hearing which lasted two days, would have been well aware of the findings of fact which they had to make. They make it quite clear in the body of the decision why they found the evidence of the Appellant unsatisfactory. They say this at paragraph 11:

"On the matter of credibility, we were not impressed with the Applicant's testimony. Quite frankly, we did not believe him. We found him capable of asserting his own aims in the best possible light ….."

Other reasons are given later in the decision as to why the Appellant was found to be an unconvincing witness.

5. In the circumstances we consider that there are no grounds for this appeal to go to a Full Hearing and we will dismiss it therefore at this stage.