[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> B A Groves & Sons v Hallett [1996] UKEAT 887_96_2611 (26 November 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/887_96_2611.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 887_96_2611

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MS A GRIFFIN (CAB Representative)


 


JUDGE CLARK: Mr Groves, the Appellant in this case, is in business as a butcher in the High Street, Leigh, Kent. He acquired that shop and business in August 1979. At that time Mr Hallett, the employee, was employed in the business and had been so employed since 1970. His employment continued with Mr Groves.

On 30 December 1995 the employee suffered a heart attack which resulted in hospital treatment. He was then 44 years old. On 21 March 1996 his doctor advised him, so the Tribunal found, that he was fit for work, although a Medical Certificate issued by his General Practitioner on 20 March is not entirely clear. One reading of that certificate is that the employee was fit to return to work on 25 March 1996.

The employee went to the shop, produced the certificate and said he that he would be fit to return on the following Monday, 27 March. The employee's account before the Industrial Tribunal was that Mr Groves said to him:

"I don't want you back. I am happy with the situation as it is. I've got a part-time person. It is better if you go and find a nice easy job elsewhere."

That account was in dispute, but having seen and heard the witnesses, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the employee where it conflicted with that of Mr Groves. The employee told the Tribunal that he left the shop that day believing that he had been dismissed. It was Mr Groves' case that the employee had advised him that he could return to work but that he could not undertake any heavy lifting. That account was in dispute, and as we have indicated the Tribunal preferred the the employee's version of events.

The Tribunal which heard this claim at Ashford on 14 June 1996 considered the defence that the contract had been frustrated by reason of illness, alternatively, that if there was a dismissal, then it was fair. They rejected both grounds of defence.

The Appellant before us, Mr Groves, represented by Mrs Griffin, now contends that in finding that the dismissal was unfair, the Industrial Tribunal erred in law. We have considered the submissions made in support of that proposition, but we are quite unable to discern any error. What seems to be suggested is that the Tribunal were wrong to find that there was a dismissal and wrong to find that the employee was fit to return. These are all matters of fact for the Industrial Tribunal and provided there was evidence to support those findings, they are not matters with which we can properly interfere.

Having considered the arguments raised, we have come to the conclusion that this appeal discloses no arguable point of law and accordingly it must be dismissed at this stage.