[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Lewis (Commission Agent) (t/a Lewis Bookmakers) v. Stanley [2000] UKEAT 267_00_2706 (27 June 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/267_00_2706.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 267_00_2706, [2000] UKEAT 267__2706

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MISS CAROL DAVIS (of Counsel) Instructed By: Messrs Howarth Goodman Solicitors 8 King Street Manchester M3 2JA


 


JUDGE DAVID WILCOX: This is an appeal against the decision of the Liverpool Employment Tribunal held on 29 September and 27 October 1999, whereby they found that the Applicant (the Respondent before us) was constructively and thereby unfairly dismissed by the Respondents (the Appellants before us). The remedy of compensation was ordered and that is really the material part of the decision which is appealed against.

1. Essentially, the Respondent was employed by the Appellants, who were a firm of bookmakers with a small chain of betting shops in the Liverpool area. He was the Manager at one of the shops.
2. It became in issue as to whether or not he was given formal warnings; if so what were the nature of those warnings, if given; how they were given and when they were given. It is clear that the Tribunal had before them evidence of the two Director brothers, Simon and Jonathan Lewis. They heard them, they saw them and they evaluated their testimony. They had also before them the Witness Statements that had been put in. They saw and they heard the Respondent and it is very clear, upon the detailed findings that they make in their very careful reasons, that they wholly preferred the evidence of the Respondent. Is there any basis upon which we, not having seen and heard the witnesses, only having before us the detailed and helpful Extended Reasons, can go behind those reasons?
3. There is such a basis it is submitted by Miss Davis in a persuasive and careful submission to us, because there are assertions strongly made by those who instruct her that they said other things in the Tribunal, they meant other things and we should therefore go behind the finding by ordering a Chairman's Note. We are not going to be privy to such a fishing expedition. There is no evidence before us by way of affidavit. We have considered and contrasted what was said in the Witness Statements and the inferences that she would like us to draw. What our inferences are is one thing, were those drawn by the Tribunal permissible inferences? We find that in relation to that factual matter they were. There was a second matter also of a factual nature that she relied upon and sought to say that this could found a finding that there was an arguable error in law, namely that there is no evidence in relation to or no finding in relation to an alleged offer of alternative employment in a quieter shop.
4. Those were matters that were canvassed at the Tribunal. It is right that there is no specific finding upon that point, but we have come to the conclusion that overall this Tribunal was seized of all the facts and matters; that the finding was well within their competence on the facts before them and, very often in trawling through detail, a Tribunal does not descend to great particularity on some matters. We find they are not to be criticised in this regard. This is wholly a matter of fact. We find that there is no arguable matter of law. We think there is no perverse conclusion. We therefore dismiss these appeals.