[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Heathfield Leisure Pursuits v. Kuhon [2001] UKEAT 809_01_1511 (15 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/809_01_1511.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 809_1_1511, [2001] UKEAT 809_01_1511

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR PAUL GREATOREX (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC

1. We are hearing applications by Heathfield Leisure Pursuits Ltd ("the Appellant") in these circumstances. The Respondent to the appeal, Mrs H Kuhon ("the Respondent") commenced employment with the Appellant, which is a registered charity, on 1 March 1999.
2. On 16 March 2000 her employment was terminated. On 10 April 2000 an IT1 was received by the Employment Tribunal complaining of unfair dismissal, unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay. The Appellant's IT3 was received on 2 May 2000. There was a hearing before a Tribunal sitting at Exeter on 25 August and 18 October 2000. That was followed by a meeting between the members on 7 November 2000, and a Decision was sent to the parties on 21 November 2000, holding that the Respondent was unfairly dismissed and adjourned the matter of remedy to a date to be fixed. Her claim relating to an unlawful deduction from wages was dismissed on withdrawal.
3. There was a remedies hearing which was duly heard on 6 February 2001 when, by a unanimous decision of the Tribunal, the Respondent was ordered to pay £15,709.06 to the Appellant and the Respondent was ordered to pay damages of £1,528.06. The Respondent appeared in person and the Appellant appeared by Mr Norgrove, its Treasurer who has, either before or after then, been ill.
4. The Decision of the Tribunal, with Summary Reasons only, was sent to the parties on 21 February 2000. Out of time, a Notice of Appeal was sent by the Appellant to this Tribunal and it was received on 26 April. It was pointed out that there were no Extended Reasons and the Appellant applied to the Employment Tribunal for Extended Reasons in an application received and refused on 22 May. The Appellant wishes to apply for an appeal against the refusal for Extended Reasons, as well as seeking to apply by its original notice for the decision on the remedy hearing to be reviewed.
5. Because of the failure to have Extended Reasons, the Notice of Appeal dated 11 April is not one which is properly before the Court. We have had the advantage, as had the Appellant today, of Mr Greatorex, as Counsel, appearing for the Appellant under the ELAAS scheme. On instructions he points to certain facts in the short Summary Reasons which are provided by the Appellant.
6. There is a holding in which the Tribunal concludes that the Applicant mitigated her loss by trying to find alternative employment. On instructions, Mr Greatorex tells us that the evidence which was produced at the hearing was of attempts by the Respondent to find alternative employment way before the hearing of her complaint, and he draws our attention to this sentence in the Summary Reasons:

"She has not been successful to date, however in view of her capabilities, qualifications and previous employment history should have no difficulty in finding a comparable job in the very near future, therefore we make no award for future losses."

However, the award of compensation did include a loss of wages to date of thirty eight weeks. If, says Mr Greatorex, on instructions, the Appellant was thought to be able to have no difficulty in finding a comparable job fairly quickly, why should she not have been able to find such a job in the previous thirty eight weeks.

7. Appeals against compensation are rarely successful. The Tribunal has had the opportunity to hear the evidence and decided on it. Here, the appeal has not yet been started; there has been a delay in making the application to the Tribunal for Extended Reasons. It was not made until 22 May. The Notice of Appeal against the refusal of the Extended Reasons was not made until 29 June. Mr Greatorex has also told us that the Appellant charity may well have very great difficulties meeting the Tribunal's award on which we understand the Respondent has already been to the County Court and obtained a judgment. He has told us something of the history of the dealings of the Lottery Fund with the charity, which perhaps has contributed to the difficulties which the charity faces. He has also told us of the illness of Mr Norgrove, who is not here today and who has been responsible for running the charity.
8. Whilst we have every sympathy with the charity in the illness of its officers, and the difficulties it has faced, we have considered the approach as directed by the Court of Appeal when an appeal is launched on Summary Reasons only. Normally such appeals go ahead only if sufficient reasons are given for there to be a fair hearing. That is not the case here. We have considered whether it would be appropriate to give further leave for this application to be delayed while further evidence is obtained. However, given the time lag which has occurred, and because it is clear that there was evidence before the Tribunal which would have enabled it to reach the decision to conclude as it did that the Applicant had mitigated her loss, there are scant reasons for believing that this appeal could be successful, if it went to a full hearing. We therefore do not think it appropriate to do anything other than to dismiss this appeal at this stage.

We would thank Mr Greatorex for his assistance in finding within the papers the grounds of appeal on which he mounted his submissions and on which submissions could be properly made for the Appellant We are sorry to learn of the financial plight of the Appellant, but sympathy cannot be allowed to dictate the course to be followed.