[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Barnes v. James Kimber Magazines Ltd [2001] UKEAT 1199_00_1312 (13 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1199_00_1312.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 1199_00_1312, [2001] UKEAT 1199__1312

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Mr P Draycott Representative Fulham Legal Advice Centre 679a Fulham Road London SW6 5PZ
For the Respondent	No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Respondent


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC

1. This is an appeal by Miss Rebecca Barnes in the following circumstances. On 23 April 2000 she made a complaint to an Industrial Tribunal that she had been unfairly dismissed by the Respondent to this appeal, James Kimber Magazines Ltd.
2. There was a hearing of her complaint on 20 July at London Central, where Mr Draycott of Counsel appeared for her, and a solicitor for the Respondent. The Tribunal dealt with the case both of unfair dismissal and compensation on the same day, and they awarded to the Appellant the total sum of £2,349.75. It was clear from her IT1 that a claim was being made for her car expenses and the consequent loss as regards her unfair dismissal, the Tribunal found that she was unfairly dismissed but does not appear to have dealt with that at all in making the award of £2,349.75, making appropriate deductions.
3. Because of the omission, there is an appeal here. It is apparent to us that there was an omission. Mr Draycott who appeared below said that he cannot remember dealing with this in his final speech, but nonetheless, it was in the IT1 and it does mention the car expenses featured in the Decision.
4. It would be obviously expensive to remit it to a Tribunal for a further hearing and, unusually, the Respondent has been debarred from appearing because it did not send in the appropriate Notices, so we have the choice of either sending it back to the Tribunal for further consideration or substituting a figure ourselves.
5. In the particular circumstances of this case, where it would be uneconomic for there to be a further hearing before the Tribunal, we have thought it appropriate, notwithstanding the absence of the Respondent, to substitute a figure for ourselves of the award. Taking account of all the appropriate deductions, we think the appropriate figure is £1000. We will therefore allow the appeal and increase the total awarded appropriate by £1000.