Appeal No.	 EAT/475/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 4 December 1996

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LINDSAY
MR D G DAVIES CBE
MISS C HOLROYD

LETS GO TRAVEL	APPELLANTS

MR S S HUDD	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

APPELLANTS	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS	

			MR JUSTICE LINDSAY:   In this matter there was an Industrial Tribunal hearing on 22 April 1996 and the decision of the Industrial Tribunal was dated 24 April.  It found that there had been unfair dismissal, and a very small sum, £338 approximately, was awarded.  The Respondent did not attend before the Industrial Tribunal.  The Industrial Tribunal held that it chose not to attend.  There was evidence given by the Applicant Mr Hudd, on oath.  The Industrial Tribunal found him to be a reliable witness.

	The day after the decision in writing was promulgated, on 25 April, the Respondent wrote to the EAT saying that Mr Hudd had lied in his evidence.  That letter to the EAT was taken to be a Notice of Appeal.  On 18 November the Respondent indicated it would not be able to attend before us.  It supplied papers to the EAT in support of its allegation that Mr Hudd had lied.  This appeal is utterly hopeless.  

	The Industrial Tribunal decides matters on the evidence put before it.  The Respondent had an opportunity to test that evidence and chose not to test it.  We deal only with errors of law.  We do not provide a second opportunity for a challenge on the facts, still less when the first opportunity has not been taken.  We dismiss the appeal.