United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR P DRAYTON (of Counsel) Fulham Legal Advice Centre 679a Fulham Road London SW6 5PZ


 


MR RECORDER UNDERHILL:

1. The tribunal in this case, by extended reasons sent to the parties on 9th August 2000, found that the appellant was unfairly dismissed, the effective date of termination being 11th April 2000, and awarded her compensation in the sum of £2,349.75.
2. By this appeal she claims that the calculation for the compensation awarded was wrong in three respects.
3. Firstly, the tribunal calculated the loss of her earnings on the basis of a period of 27 weeks unemployment, that is, 14 weeks between the effective date of termination and the date of hearing plus a further 13 weeks. The tribunal recited the appellant's evidence that:

"24 … She has applied for a number of jobs, but because of her specialist experience it may take her a year to find a new job."

But, they went on to say that they:

"considered that a further 13 weeks' compensation was appropriate."

The appellant says that that finding is bad in law because:

(a) no reason is given for the figure of 13 weeks, save that the tribunal decided that it was "appropriate";

(b) it was perverse in view of the evidence before the tribunal of the difficulties which the appellant was likely to encounter in finding further employment.

4. As to (a), in assessing a period for future loss a tribunal has to make what is inevitably a broad judgment as to a figure which represents the mid-point of possible outcomes. That assessment is not susceptible of detailed explanation. We do not believe that the tribunal erred in law in not saying more than it did.
5. As to (b), the appellant in her skeleton arguments summarises the evidence which was before the tribunal relating to the difficulties which were likely to face her. It is clear that the tribunal were aware of that evidence since they referred to it in general terms; and we do not believe that even if they had accepted it in full their decision to assess compensation on the basis of a further three months was not one which was open to them in law.
6. Secondly, the tribunal awarded the appellant £50 in relation to the cost of telephone calls incurred partly in looking for other full-time employment but also, as has been explained to us, in looking for freelance work which she was having to undertake on temporary basis. Again, the appellant makes the point that the tribunal's award of £50 was not sufficiently reasoned and further, asserts that it was perverse in view of the evidence in terms of increased telephone bills which were put before the tribunal.
7. Again, however, in our view, the tribunal was not obliged with an item of this kind to embark on any detailed assessment. Nor do we find that the evidence which was apparently before them compels the acceptance of a figure of more than £50.
8. The third item is not raised in the original Notice of Appeal but leave is sought to raise it here. The tribunal made no award in relation to the value to the appellant of her company car. We understand that when the appellant gave evidence in relation to compensation, which occurred at a separate stage of the hearing after the tribunal had announced their decision on liability, she did not expressly refer to this item and nor was it mentioned in the brief submissions which were made on her behalf. That undoubtedly creates a difficulty for her. But she says that the tribunal must have been fully aware, from the IT1 and from her contract of employment and from mention made in her evidence in chief on the issue of liability, that she was entitled to a company car and that this was an important and valued benefit. She says that the tribunal were bound to consider what compensation should be awarded in relation to the loss of this benefit and, if necessary, to investigate the point or to raise the point themselves in the course of their investigation of compensation. In view of the undoubted fact that the tribunal must have been aware that the appellant enjoyed this benefit and of the fact that it is a potentially major head of compensation, we are not prepared to say that that criticism is unarguable and we are accordingly prepared to allow the appeal to proceed to a full hearing on that issue alone.
9. We accordingly give leave for substitute grounds of appeal raising that issue to be lodged within 14 days. We do not believe that the appeal on this issue should last more than one hour and that, accordingly, is our estimate and it should be Category C.
10. It has been suggested to us that the Chairman's Notes would be of value in relation to the issues raised by the appeal generally. But on this head, in view of the fact that it is accepted that the point was not explicitly raised on the compensation hearing, we do not see that the Chairman's Notes will add anything of value. We accordingly do not order them.