[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Tsontzos v. Hilton International Hotels (UK) Ltd [1999] UKEAT 635_99_2809 (28 September 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/635_99_2809.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 635_99_2809

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR F EDWARDS JNR. (Representative) Cain & Abel Law Firm 239 Missenden Inville Road London SE17 2HX


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK:

1. The appellant, Mr Tsontzos, was summarily dismissed by the respondent from his post as Head Concierge at their Kensington hotel after 12 years service on 31st July 1996 for gross misconduct. It was said that he had deliberately and fraudulently obtained money from guests by adding a handling charge when sending packages on their behalf by courier and by claiming the sum of £86.60 in respect of a parcel sent by courier when the courier's account was settled separately by the Hotel. Those charges were vehemently denied by the appellant.
2. His complaint of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were first heard by an Employment Tribunal which gave an indication to the parties' representatives before the hearing was completed that nothing the appellant was likely to say would alter the fact that the respondents had conducted themselves properly as employers. As a result of that indication he withdrew his complaint.
3. He then appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and a division presided over Morison J held that an injustice had occurred and ordered a rehearing. Hence the matter came before a fresh Employment Tribunal, chaired by Mr G Flint, sitting at London (North) on 24th to 26th February 1999. By a decision with extended reasons dated 25th March 1999 that tribunal dismissed both complaints. Against that decision Mr Tsontzos again appeals to this Appeal Tribunal.
4. The original grounds of appeal, contained in a Notice lodged on 5th May 1999 are less than informative. This morning we received for the first time a skeleton argument prepared by Mr Edward, who has had conduct of this appeal throughout on behalf of the appellant, which raises eight detailed grounds of appeal not detailed in the original Notice, and the original Employment Tribunal bundle running to 89 pages. That is not satisfactory. Our Practice Direction requires that skeleton arguments be lodged seven days before a preliminary hearing. There has been no appellant's PHD form lodged on behalf of Mr Tsontzos because, Mr Edward tells us, he thought only the respondent had to lodge a PHD form. It seems to us that we cannot do justice to this appeal at the preliminary hearing stage in these circumstances.
5. Accordingly we shall adjourn this hearing and direct that the appellant lodge a proper amended Notice of Appeal, setting out the detailed grounds relied upon within 14 days of today and an appellant's PHD form. A copy of that draft amended Notice of Appeal is to be sent to the respondent and the respondent may lodge an amended PHD form in the light of those new grounds if so advised. For example, looking at the way in which the case is put in the appellant's skeleton argument, it may be that an application will be made on behalf of the respondent for Chairman's Notes of Evidence in whole or in part based on the grounds now raised. The case will then be re-listed for a further preliminary hearing before me. It will not be necessary for the same lay members to sit on the next occasion.