[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Lewis v Motor Neurone Disease Association [1994] UKEAT 296_93_2601 (26 January 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/296_93_2601.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 296_93_2601

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 296_93_2601

Appeal No. EAT/296/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 26th January 1994

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

MR J R CROSBY

MR J D DALY

---

J C A LEWIS          APPELLANT

MOTOR NEURONE DISEASE ASSOCIATION          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR J C A LEWIS

(In Person)


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC: This is a preliminary hearing of a proposed appeal by Mr James Lewis. The Respondent to the appeal is Motor Neurone Disease Association.

There was a hearing on the 19th and 20th January 1993 and on the 15th February 1993 before the Bedford Tribunal which unanimously decided that Mr Lewis was not unfairly dismissed.

Essentially the background to the dismissal was a redundancy position arising in a National Charity which found itself severely short of funds and had to economise with its staff.

Mr Lewis' primary complaint is the redundancy procedures and the internal proceedings prior to his dismissal were unfair to him and he rehearsed these at length before the Tribunal which carefully and fully set out a summary of these submissions and reached the conclusion at paragraph 11 of the Reasons:

"However, we are satisfied that the appeal process referred to in paragraph 10 comprehensively addressed all the issues arising out of his dismissal which the applicant wished to address and gave him full opportunity of presenting his case."

Mr Lewis has given us a statement which he took us through suggesting that many things went wrong in the interim procedure. As we pointed out to him in the course of argument, this is an Appeal Tribunal which can only interfere if there is something wrong in law. We have carefully considered all that he has said to us in his statement, but we are satisfied that there is nothing in the decision of the Industrial Tribunal which could lead to any prospects of success. The Tribunal had firmly in mind the provisions of Section 57 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 in considering the question posed for their decision, in our view. Though it may be that a different tribunal might have come to a different conclusion, it is not one where the result can be interfered with or is at all likely to be interfered with on appeal. In the circumstances, we propose to dismiss this appeal.