[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Turner v J S Chinn & Co Ltd [1994] UKEAT 389_93_1102 (11 February 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/389_93_1102.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 389_93_1102

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

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 389_93_1102

Appeal No. EAT/389/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 11 February 1994

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

MR D G DAVIES

MISS A MACKIE OBE

---

MR A P TURNER          APPELLANT

J S CHINN & CO LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR E BEEVER

(OF COUNSEL)

Messrs Payne Skillington

120A Abbey Street

Nuneaton

Warwickshire

CV11 5BY


 


JUDGE LEVY: This is an ex parte application by Mr A P Turner who proposes to appeal from a decision of the Industrial Tribunal given in Birmingham on 8 March 1993, the decision having been communicated to the parties on 1 April 1993 when it was held unanimously by the Tribunal that Mr Turner had been fairly dismissed. The only ground for appeal, and an important ground, is that there was apparent bias by the Chairman and possibly a member of the Tribunal against the Appellant.

We have looked into the papers very fully and listened to Mr Beever's submissions on behalf of the Appellant but at the end of the day there was an unfortunate redundancy situation within the Company which eventually led to the Appellant's dismissal. There had been a thorough investigation by the Company before coming to its decision. There was a 5¹/₂ hour hearing before the Industrial Tribunal and after an hour of that hearing the Chairman became perhaps impatient, and that is always regrettable, but we are left with no doubt at the end of the day that the decision of the Tribunal was one that was inevitable in the circumstances. We do not like to knock out an appeal where there is a suggestion of bias where there is anything which would sustain the suggestion. In this appeal, the Appellant does have the advantage of an Affidavit from an independent person who felt that the hearing was not as neutral as it might have been, but on analysis that independent person's Affidavit does not show that anything untoward did go on at the trial which led to a perverse decision. The Affidavit, for instance complains of a question raised by the Chairman: "What does it matter if the appeal was unfair, if the dismissal was unfair?". This Tribunal believes that the question is not which for instance, the Chairman could properly have asked of an advocate, had one appeared for the Appellant, and he cannot be blamed for raising a question of the Appellant which he feels was pertinent.

In the circumstances, not without some hesitation, we feel this appeal must be dismissed.