[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Shah v. Vauxhall Motors Ltd [2000] UKEAT 811_00_2411 (24 November 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/811_00_2411.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 811_00_2411, [2000] UKEAT 811__2411

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MS V BURNHAM (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC

1. Mr A K Shah, from a decision promulgated by an Employment Tribunal sitting at Bedford for several days in November 1999 and April 2000. The judgment was promulgated on 18 May 2000. The Tribunal found that he was unfairly dismissed, but because he had contributed to his dismissal, the Tribunal reduced the basic award and compensatory award by 75%. It is against that reduction of which the first preliminary hearing ex-parte is sought to be heard.
2. Having considered the papers in advance, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the points raised in the Notice of Appeal gave no grounds for appeal because what was being urged by Mr Shah, who appeared in person below, were matters, when strictly considered were within the bounds of the discretion of the Tribunal below to settle. It may be that a Tribunal differently constituted, could have come to a different reduction, but it is a matter of discretion for the Tribunal what is appropriate, and we can see nothing wrong in the decision.
3. However Mr Shah has had the benefit of an ELAAS representative today, and that representative had said to us that this is a matter where compensation was based on conduct. She is satisfied that if time was given to trawl through, or carefully examine the papers which Mr Shah has from the Tribunal below, there may be grounds to say that the findings of conduct should have been different to those which were made, and thus the question of compensation should have been viewed from a different angle.
4. She asked us not to dismiss the appeal at this stage, but submits that there should be a short pause so that if an amended Notice of Appeal is put in, with grounds for that appeal based on lack of findings, with appropriate affidavit evidence, if necessary, then the matter should come before a fresh Tribunal.
5. If however, no such grounds are discernible, and no such affidavit appears within a certain time, then the appeal should be dismissed at that time. We think this is an appropriate course to take, we will therefore say that this appeal will be dismissed on Monday week, unless by 4pm on next Friday, 1 December, a Notice of Appeal has been lodged and served together with the appropriate affidavit and support.