Appeal No.	 EAT/577/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 19 November 1996

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D PUGSLEY
MRS T A MARSLAND
MR T C THOMAS CBE

MR A EVANS	APPELLANT

ACE SECURITY SERVICES	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON	

	JUDGE PUGSLEY:   In this case Mr Evans has filed a Notice of Appeal against a decision of the Nottingham Industrial Tribunal but sitting at Lincoln. 

	At that hearing neither party was professionally represented. In a decision which was given in extended form the tribunal found that the respondent had breached the contract of the applicant and awarded the sum of £119.14.

	The tribunal also went on to hear evidence upon the issue as to whether or not the applicant is entitled to commission payments. In paragraphs 2 to 8 of the tribunal’s decision the position is analysed, and the tribunal make certain findings. They are summarised at paragraph 7:

“	Our findings are that the applicant and respondents did not agree that the applicant should receive commission. Instead, there was simply the promise to see him all right. ...”

The tribunal then went on to make a finding that to some extent that had happened because of the findings of fact they made, the respondents had assisted the applicant with some employment.

	The tribunal summarised the position by saying this at paragraph 7:

“Although it seems a strange proposition, we accept that the applicant was providing leads to the respondents for nothing and in the hope and expectation that he would secure employment with them, may be because he perceived that their business was the one most likely to survive and prosper.”

	At paragraph 8 the tribunal concluded the decision in these words:

“	In those circumstances we find that there was no contract term for the payment of commission. Further, there was never any agreement as to commission rates upon which the parties could act with certainty. Therefore, we reject this claim.”

	We have had the benefit of a full skeleton argument submitted by Messrs Sills & Betteridge solicitors of Lincoln. We have also heard Mr Evans.

	During his submissions to us, Mr Evans said he now had further evidence which he wished to call. That is not a matter that features in the Notice of Appeal nor in the skeleton argument and it is not an issue with which we consider we should deal. If there is any question of further evidence being called, that would need to satisfy the tests of the Industrial Tribunal’s (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 Schedule 1 Rule 11, for a review of the tribunal’s decision which provides under Rule 11(1)(d) (as a ground for a review):

“new evidence has become available since the conclusion of the hearing to which the decision relates, provided that its existence could not have been reasonably known of or foreseen at the time of the hearing:”

There is of course a residual category under (e) that a review may take place in “the interests of justice require such a review”. But that is a matter for the Industrial Tribunal if an application is made whether to review a decision. 

	In our view, there is no error of law on the grounds alleged. There are two grounds of appeal:  that the tribunal did not consider a promise by the respondents to the appellant to see him all right, amounted to implied terms of contract to provide him with reasonable recompense for the appellant finding security contacts for the benefit of the respondents. and that the tribunal failed to consider any claim to a quantum merit raised by the appellant’s details of complaint in the appellant’s form IT1.

	The tribunal made a very specific finding of fact at paragraph 7 of their decision. In the light of that finding of fact the issue raised in the grounds of appeal do not arise. In our view there is no issue of law which justifies this case being argued before a full tribunal.