Appeal No.	 EAT/483/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 28 July 1999

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHARLES
MRS D M PALMER
MR N D WILLIS

MR C CASSERLEY	APPELLANT

E COOKSON LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

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

	MR JUSTICE CHARLES:	We have before us a preliminary hearing in an appeal, the parties to which are a Mr Casserley and E. Cookson Ltd.  Mr Casserley is the Appellant and E. Cookson Ltd is the Respondent to the appeal.

1	Mr Casserley appeals against a decision of the Employment Tribunal sent to the parties on 4 February 1999.  That decision was that Mr Casserley had not been dismissed and therefore his claim for unfair dismissal could not be sustained.

2	The grounds of the appeal are essentially perversity and are succinctly set out in the Notice of Appeal in the following terms:

“Even though the tribunal accepted my version of events they decided against my application perversely.”

3	The Tribunal, in our judgment correctly, directed themselves as to the approach to be taken in law.  They had to assess the effect of an exchange between Mr Casserley and a Mr Gears as to whether or not that exchange amounted to a dismissal.  They accepted Mr Casserley’s account of the exchange but did not accept his assertion as to its effect, namely that it was a dismissal.  In our judgment that is a matter for the Tribunal to decide hearing the evidence.  The decision that they have reached is well within the band of decisions open to a Tribunal and in our judgment this appeal raises no point that is reasonably arguable that that decision-making process, or that decision, of the Tribunal is perverse.

4	Mr Casserley has not appeared before us today.  Attempts have been made to contact him and we are informed by the Officers of this Tribunal that he had indicated that he was going to attend today.  It may be that he has been held up in transit.  We do not know, we can only speculate as to why he is not here.  The judgment I have just delivered is based on our reading of the papers.

5	Given Mr Casserley’s absence and his indication that he wished to attend, what we propose to do is to dismiss this appeal for the reasons we have set out but indicate that that dismissal of the appeal is not to take effect if Mr Casserley notifies this Tribunal before 1 September that he wishes to appear on a restored preliminary hearing.  If he does so indicate then we will direct that this matter be restored for a further preliminary hearing