At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
(AS IN CHAMBERS)
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
RULE 3(10) HEARING
For the Appellant | MR ROBIN WHITE (Of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Addleshaw Goddard Solicitors 25 Cannon Street London EC4M 5TB |
JUDGE PETER CLARK
"(j) Approximately thirty employees are based at the respondent's premises in Belgium to which the notice was addressed. Incoming post is left on the receptionist desk to be sorted. The applicant gave evidence, which we also accept, that the receptionist is not always present at the desk. When sorted the post is placed in pigeon holes for individual employees. Ms Burzynska caused an enquiry to be made of all employees to see if they had received the missing notice without finding the notice."
(1) that the Employment Tribunal treated the 3 earlier Employment Appeal Tribunal authorities to which I have referred as authorities of fact, not law
(2) that the Employment Tribunal gave no proper grounds for concluding that ADC had failed to rebut the presumption of delivery
(3) that their conclusion was perverse; it was not a permissible option on the facts.