[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Addison Tube Forming Ltd v. Williams [2002] UKEAT 1085_01_2305 (23 May 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1085_01_2305.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1085_1_2305, [2002] UKEAT 1085_01_2305

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR T CROXFORD (of Counsel) Messrs Lewis Silkin Solicitors 12 Gough Square London EC4A 3DW


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

1. This is the Preliminary Hearing of an appeal from the decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Manchester on 23 May 2001 when the first issue before the Tribunal was whether or not the Applicant, Mr A Williams, had been wrongly dismissed by his employer, Addison Tube Forming Ltd (the Appellant). The Tribunal decision was sent to the parties on
   2 August 2001. The decision of the Tribunal was that Mr Williams had been unfairly dismissed and a compensation award of £19,502.50 was ordered. On the face of the decision the word 'Extended' is omitted before the reasons and above the word 'Decision' there is not the usual line showing who were the representatives at the hearing but paragraph 1 of the Extended Reasons shows that Mr Williams was represented by counsel and the Appellant by Mr D Hughes, whom we now know to be a consultant. There is no appeal against the award of compensation but there is an appeal against the decision, largely on the basis that there was bias shown by the Chairman.
2. We have had the benefit of a helpful skeleton argument from Mr Croxford which he has augmented in his oral submissions. We have had included during the course of the morning an affidavit on the subject of bias which should have been with our papers, from Kerry Lyn Wallace, in addition to the Appellant's affidavit and the Chairman's comments on it. We have also been shown a letter of 8 September 2000 which was a central part of the case. That letter to Mr Williams reads:

"I am writing with regard to your verbal notice to terminate your employment at Addison Tube Forming Limited.

On the 9^th August 2000 you informed me of your intention to leave the company on either the 8^th or 15^th September 2000 and undertake a college course. The date was dependent upon your enrolment.

I have now been informed that you wish to retract your notice and to continue your employment at the company.

I regret to advise you that I am unwilling to accept the retraction of your notice, as we have made alternative arrangements to fill your position. As such, your employment with the company will cease on Friday 15^th September 2000."

From his IT1 it was clear that Mr Williams was saying that he had not resigned. From the IT3 the position was rather more blurred.

3. The Appellant s' contention is that at the hearing the Chairman put improper pressure on the consultant representing the Appellant to say that if there was no date of a resignation there could not have been a resignation and therefore the case must fail. It is also said that the Chairman said in those circumstances if the Appellant continued to contest the issue they might have to pay costs.
4. It seems clear to us that if, which he does not deny, the Chairman used strong words, he may have felt that on the documents he had seen, it was an open and shut case. However that may be, he gave the consultant a break to consider whether or not a concession should be made and at the end of that break a concession was made by the consultant, acting as the Appellant's representative. In those circumstances it does not seem to us to be open to the Appellant to argue that there was undue pressure from the Chairman and we cannot accept submissions to that effect. A concession was made and if it was wrongly made, and we have great doubts as to whether it was, then, in our judgment what the Appellant is trying to do is possibly to get behind the award which was made against it on the dismissal which was found, on the concession, to be wrongful.
5. We do not think this appeal has any chance of success if it goes to a full appeal. Though we thank Mr Croxford for his submissions we think the proper course for us to take is to dismiss it now.