[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Locke v Sun Electric UK Ltd [1998] UKEAT 300_98_0307 (3 July 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/300_98_0307.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 300_98_307, [1998] UKEAT 300_98_0307

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

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal against an Industrial Tribunal's decision which was promulgated on 4 November 1997. By their decision the Industrial Tribunal concluded that Mr Locke's application for unfair dismissal was bound to fail because he did not have the requisite period of continuous service.

The Tribunal Chairman and lay members who considered this question went into the matter in considerable detail, as set out in their decision dated 3 November 1997, which was sent to the parties the following day.

The Notice of Appeal says:

"The Tribunal did not address the issue of my stated claim that I was dismissed for Health and Safety reasons for which continuity of service is irrelevant as stated on my application."

It seems to us very clear from the terms of the Industrial Tribunal's decision that that issue was not raised before them. They did not deal with it at all and when an application was made to the Industrial Tribunal that it should review its decision, that application was dismissed, Mr Locke not having presented himself to argue the point.

Whilst it is true that in his IT1 Mr Locke had said, "Unfair dismissal" and subsequently, by way of an amendment alleged "Breach of Contract (inclusive of Health and Safety at Work aspects)" it seems to us that it would be unfair to criticise the Industrial Tribunal for dealing with the case on the basis which they did. The unfair dismissal case, it was not suggested, related to Health and Safety at Work issues, it was those issues which impinged on the question of breach of contract.

There is nothing stated at all in the IT1, in the particulars, which gives any grounds for believing that there was an arguable case that he had been dismissed for Health and Safety at Work issues. The IT3 makes it plain what the issues were.

After the Notice of Appeal had been filed, the Respondents in accordance with their obligations, filed a form indicating their approach to the appeal and they accompanied that form with a letter to us, indicating that they did not consider that it was open to Mr Locke to appeal the decision because there had been a settlement of all disputes between the parties which was entered into as a result of County Court proceedings. Under that settlement Mr Locke was paid £20,000 in full and final settlement of all claims that he might have against his former employers.

Mr Locke has not presented himself at this appeal. The employers have not appeared, although it was listed for an inter-partes hearing. It seems to us that it is clear that there has been no error of law in what the Tribunal has done and accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.