[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Smith & Anor v Maidstone Hospital's Staff Social Club [1996] UKEAT 874_95_1502 (15 February 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/874_95_1502.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 874_95_1502

[New search] [Help]

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 874_95_1502

Appeal No. EAT/874/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 15 February 1996

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D PUGSLEY

MR A C BLYGHTON

MR K M HACK JP

---

MRS P SMITH & MR D FRANCIS          APPELLANTS

MAIDSTONE HOSPITAL'S STAFF SOCIAL CLUB          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants NO APPEARANCE BY OR

REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS


 


JUDGE D PUGSLEY: In this case the Associate has caused enquiries to be made and Mr Francis has telephoned back to say that he has spoken to his Solicitor, who said he did not plan to take the matter any further until he got legal aid. He asked us to consider the preliminary issue on the papers before us and apologised for not attending today, as he has left it to a Solicitor. In the context of this case the same considerations apply to Mrs Smith.

This is an application which has been listed under the new procedure to determine whether there are any identifiable grounds of law in which the Tribunal has made error. We can deal with this matter in short form and say that the members of the Tribunal, both of whom are very experienced, have carefully gone through the decision, as I have done, and are all of the view that the Tribunal in each case has directed itself to the issues. It is a matter in which they set out their view of the facts and they set out the submission made by both parties.

They announce in their decision, at the relevant paragraphs, the matters they have taken into account and their conclusion is quite simply, as far as Mr Francis is concerned, that although he may have been threatened with dismissal, there was not in law a dismissal. They say that the request for the keys was not an act of dismissal and we can find no error of law in their reasoning.

As far as Mrs Patricia Smith is concerned, again they reviewed the evidence. In our view, they correctly cite the requisite matters, and we do not find any error in law in their reasons.

Therefore, we cannot put forward that this a case where there is any identifiable issue of law to be determined, and in the light of that we dismiss the appeal.