Appeal No. EAT/318/94

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 2 February 1995

	Before

	HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

	MR T S BATHO

	MISS A MADDOCKS OBE

J A G ENGINEERING AND PACKAGING LTD	APPELLANTS

MR E J SALE	RESPONDENT

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR HARRY SHINGLETON
(Solicitor)
	Messrs Pyms
	The Triangle
	Belper
	Derbyshire

For the Respondent	NO ATTENDANCE

	JUDGE LEVY QC:   We have this morning an appeal by J.A.G. Engineering and Packaging Ltd, ("the Company") in proceedings commenced by Mr E.J. Sale.  Mr Sale was an employee of the Company who was laid off for a very long period.  

	A time came when there were occurrences which led to his leaving the Company's employment.  He claimed that he was unfairly dismissed and commenced proceedings in Sheffield, which were heard by Sheffield Industrial Tribunal on 16 December 1993.  The Tribunal's Decision was sent to the parties on 19 January 1994.  The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that the Applicant was unfairly dismissed and the Respondent was ordered to pay him compensation amounting to £1,505.  

	A Notice of Appeal was lodged by the Company dated 28 February 1994, which had a number of grounds in it.  The first two of those grounds went to whether the reason for dismissal was right.  The third ground went into the amount of compensation awarded.  By a skeleton argument, received by this court on 1 February at 3.38 p.m., notice was given that the first two grounds of appeal were being abandoned.  That left only the appeal on the grounds of compensation.

	The Respondent to the appeal, Mr Sale, has not attended this morning.  Mr Shingleton has appeared for the Company, and on this appeal seeks to make points which in our judgment are not open to him to be made, in so far as they are points which could have been made below and were not.

	The position is that on 16 December 1993, as paragraph 9 of the Full Reasons shows, the parties after hearing the decision as to the dismissal itself, asked the Tribunal to deal with the question of remedy.  The Tribunal then heard evidence from Mr Sale and Mr Richardson, the leading shareholder, the leading light in the Company.  Having heard the evidence which it had, the Tribunal was clearly, on the facts, entitled to come to the decision which it did and in the circumstances what Mr Shingleton has been trying to do, valiantly this morning, is to go behind the facts which were found then.  This Tribunal is generally reluctant to interfere with an award made following a compensation hearing for the reasons given by Phillips J., in Fougère  v  Phoenix Motor Co Ltd [1976] ICR 495.  We see no semblance of a serious error here.

	In the circumstances, while thanking Mr Shingleton for his submissions, we dismiss this appeal.