Appeal No.	 EAT/1488/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 14 May 2001

Before
HER HONOUR JUDGE A WAKEFIELD
MS N AMIN
MISS C HOLROYD

MISS C DENT	APPELLANT

BRACKNELL & WOKINGHAM COLLEGE	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR GARRY MORTON
(of Counsel)
Appearing under the
Employment Law Appeal
Advice Scheme	

HER HONOUR JUDGE A WAKEFIELD

1	This is an Ex Parte Preliminary Hearing of an appeal by Miss Claudette Dent against the decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Reading on 15 August 2000 whereby her claim for damages for wrongful dismissal was successful in the sum of £831.36.  

2	The appeal is based on the alleged failure of the Employment Tribunal to award a greater sum by way of compensation on the basis that had the Respondent properly followed the disciplinary procedures prior to dismissal the period before contractual notice could have been given would have been greater than the two weeks which the Employment Tribunal had considered to be appropriate.

3	We have been greatly assisted today by Mr Morton, who, under the ELAAS Scheme, has represented the Appellant.  He has argued, quite correctly, that the extended reasons for the decision do not give any details of the basis upon which the two-week period was considered appropriate.  He therefore argues that there is an error of law in that the Appellant has no way of knowing why that part of the decision was reached.  This would be a compelling argument if, firstly, the Employment Tribunal at the original hearing had been presented with evidence or submissions on the question by either or both parties and, secondly, if this argument had been specifically addressed to the Employment Tribunal when a review of the decision was sought.

4	As appears to us from what we have been told by Mr Morton today and he is so instructed by the Appellant (neither he nor we having seen the Chairman’s notes of evidence) no evidence was before the Employment Tribunal as to the period that it would or might have taken for the Respondent to go through the disciplinary procedure nor, it thus follows, were any submissions made to the Employment Tribunal as to this aspect prior to the decision being reached.  Since it was for the Appellant to prove her case on wrongful dismissal and as to the correct quantum of damages, it would therefore have been open to the Employment Tribunal to find that no loss had been shown under this head.  The Employment Tribunal did however have before it, as have we, the Respondent’s disciplinary procedures.  It can only have been on the basis of those procedures that the Chairman made the finding which he sets out in paragraph 8 of the decision as follows:

“The Tribunal finds therefore that had the proper procedures been followed, dismissal would have followed and it would have taken two weeks to complete these procedures.”

If anything, the Chairman was therefore being generous to the Appellant on the basis of the evidence which she had chosen to adduce before the Tribunal.

5	When applying for a review of the decision the Appellant said on this aspect:

“I do not feel that the amount awarded is sufficient.  I was advised that I could claim up to a year of losses.  Under the disciplinary rules it would have taken that time to actually dismiss me.”

If that had been her case at the original hearing, she should have supported it by evidence and/or submissions.  The Chairman therefore refused the review, saying on this aspect at paragraph 3 of the review decision:

“The Applicant produced no new arguments and does no more than disagree with the Tribunal’s decision with regard to the measure of damages.  This is not a ground for arguing that the interests of justice require a review of the decision.”

In all these circumstances we are unable to find that the Employment Tribunal has made a mistake in law.  The appeal therefore must be dismissed at this stage.