[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Winter v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council [1996] UKEAT 763_96_0912 (9 December 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/763_96_0912.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 763_96_912, [1996] UKEAT 763_96_0912

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	IN PERSON


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC: Mr D.M. Winter was unfairly dismissed by St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council, as an Industrial Tribunal found on a hearing of a complaint by him, following a hearing on 14 and 15 December 1995 ("the Merits hearing"). The decision on the Merits hearing was sent to the parties on 8 February 1996. Following that decision there was a remedies hearing. That took place on 1 May 1996. The decision following that hearing was sent to the parties on 22 May 1996.

The bones of the second decision are found in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Reasons in extended form. These read:

"7. On the basis of that evidence we concluded that there was a 50 per cent chance that Mr Winter would have been dismissed on the date on which in fact he was (15 April 1993) and a 50 per cent chance that he would have been retained in employment beyond that date.

8. If he had been so retained, then we believe it was inevitable that he would have been made redundant in due course. The date of that redundancy we assess at 15 April 1994."

The Industrial Tribunal did its mathematics based on those findings. It is from this finding that Mr Winter wishes to appeal. He says that it was not reasonable to find that he would have been made redundant at 15 April 1994.

However, in paragraph 6 of the Extended Reasons following the second hearing, it is stated that evidence was heard by the Industrial Tribunal on that subject both from Mr Danson, on behalf of the Council, and from Mr Winter.

It is the job of an Industrial Tribunal to sift evidence to determine what evidence they accept and what evidence they reject. It is clear from reading the Extended Reasons of both Decisions that that was a task which the Industrial Tribunal undertook and undertook carefully. It

is clear that Mr Winter, like many a losing litigant, does not like the result, but we cannot interfere with findings of fact when there was evidence before a Tribunal on which it could base its findings..

In these circumstances, it would not be right to let this appeal go forward. Accordingly we dismiss it at this stage. We would like to thank Mr Winters for his clear submissions to us.