[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Sackey v Superdrug Stores Plc [1997] UKEAT 303_97_1311 (13 November 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/303_97_1311.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 303_97_1311

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


MR JUSTICE LINDSAY: We have before us a Notice of Appeal of 12 February 1997 by Mr B.K. Sackey. The Respondent to the appeal is Superdrug Stores Plc, his one-time employer.

For the sake of the record I must notice that it is not Mr P. Parker who is a member of this panel of three but Mr Manners, the reason being that Mr Parker had been a member of the Industrial Tribunal below and consequently was not appropriate to be a member of the panel on the appeal.

On 14 January 1997 Mr Sackey won the issue as to unfair dismissal. He won on procedural reasons but he was adjudged to have contributed to the extent of 25% to his own dismissal and, moreover, the Industrial Tribunal on that day held that had the procedure been fair he would nonetheless have been dismissed and the chance of his being dismissed, even had the procedure been fair, was ruled to be 100%.

Accordingly, the matter went forward to quantification and on 3 March at the Remedies Hearing the Respondent, Superdrug, was ordered to pay £1,260 by way of a basic award of £1,680 reduced by 25%, namely £1,260. The compensatory award was fixed at zero by reason of the 100% likelihood that he would have been dismissed even had the process been fairly conducted.

It is Mr Sackey who now appeals and we have looked at his grounds of appeal and, so far as we discern, no error of law is made good in those grounds of appeal. The case was listed to come on at 10.30 am. It is now 5 past 2. Mr Sackey is not here, nor is anyone to speak for Mr Sackey and he has been called repeatedly and nothing has been heard, for example, as to travel difficulties or anything else.

We would, it seems to us, have been highly likely (I do not need to assess the likelihood at 100%) to have dismissed the case even had we heard argument but, certainly, having not heard anything, we dismiss the case.