[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Wilcock v Conco Ltd [1994] UKEAT 68_93_0802 (8 February 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/68_93_0802.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 68_93_0802, [1994] UKEAT 68_93_802

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

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 68_93_0802

Appeal No. EAT/68/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 8 February 1994

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

MISS A MACKIE OBE

MR R TODD

---

MISS R WILCOCK          APPELLANT

CONCO LIMITED          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR W J DIAMOND

(CONSULTANT)

Peninsula Business Services

361-365 Chapel Street

Manchester

M3 5JY


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: This is a Preliminary Hearing of an application of an appeal by the employee, Miss R A Wilcock, who was the Applicant below from a decision of the Southampton Industrial Tribunal given on 1 December 1992. In their decision they state:

"The dismissal was for conduct, and that such dismissal was fair. The applicant is entitled to receive 2 weeks' wages for the failure to give written reasons of dismissal. The applicant is entitled to one week's wages under the Wages Act for the failure to pay wages due between 29 November and 6 December".

We are very grateful indeed to Mr Diamond for his spirited and sustained attack on the decision of the Industrial Tribunal and their reasons or (as he submitted) rather the lack of them in their decision, but at the end of the day we are satisfied that what is being raised here are arguments on matters of fact with which we cannot interfere and which at a full hearing would not be interfered with.

Mr Diamond rightly says that a good deal of the reasons sets out the arguments placed on either side below and that the conclusions are rather summary, but at the end of the day what we find in paragraphs 44 to 47 of the judgment are full reasons which the Tribunal which had heard all the evidence was entitled to find. It may be that they do not in the judgment set out whose evidence they accept and whose evidence they reject in a way that would have been more satisfactory. It may be that particularly on the issue whether there were written warnings, which there were not, or whether there were oral warnings and if so how they were given, the Tribunal has taken into account the fact of the smallness of the operation and the change of relationship when the business changed hands. The Applicant was the sister of the owner of the business and she had been in his employ. May be that was insufficiently emphasised in the judgment, but, at the end of the day, we are satisfied that the Tribunal came to the only conclusion which it could have come to in the circumstances and there is no hope of success for the Appellant in this appeal.

Mr Diamond suggested to us that if there was an arguable case to go forward it should go forward. We are satisfied that no argument which could go forward could succeed and in those circumstances we are dismissing this appeal.