Purchase v Ellis & Buckle [1994] UKEAT 647_94_3110

EAT
Purchase v Ellis & Buckle
[1994] UKEAT 647_94_3110 · 1994-10-31
MR JUSTICE PILL: This is an Appeal by Mr R V Purchase against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Southampton on the 30th March 1994. The Tribunal held unanimously that the Application for Compensation for Unfair Dismissal fails and is dismissed.We have been told that the Appellant has been given Notice in writing in the usual way of this Hearing. He has not appeared and we are told that there has been no communication from him. We propose to proceed with consideration of the Appeal upon the material which is before us. That includes of course, the recent decision of the Industrial Tribunal along with the Form in which the Application to it was made and the reply of the employers, Messrs Ellis & Buckle. It does not include the documents which it appears were placed before the Tribunal.We refer first, to the Notice of Appeal. It states:1. There was "dismissal" as conceded by the respondent's solicitor and letter (6.4.93).2. There was no redundancy situation at time of "dismissal".3. Only arose AFTER dismissal and no consultation and thus unfair selection occurred.4. No "consensual parting" (See letter 6.5.94)."It can be confirmed by reference to paragraph 5 of the Tribunal's decision that the respondents' Solicitor conceded, at the commencement of the hearing, that the Applicant had been dismissed. The Tribunal however, went on to form their own view of the matter and they found that paragraph 11:
"On those facts it is our view that the applicant has failed to prove that he was dismissed, and all the evidence suggests that there was a consensual parting. In this event, they applicant would be unable to prove that he had been unfairly dismissed."
The Tribunal went on however, to consider in the alternative whether, if the Applicant was dismissed, his dismissal was unfair or not. They set out the facts as they found them, in some detail. The Applicant was employed by the Respondent firm as a Senior Loss Adjuster and had been employed from the 1st August 1984 until the 4th June 1993. The Tribunal set out the documents which they considered in the course of coming to their decision. They set out their reasons for concluding that there was, as they put it, a consensual parting. They then set out their reasons why, upon the facts, they found that the dismissal was not unfair. They state their conclusion at paragraph 27:
"We are not prepared to interfere in the management decision that for the benefit of the clients they needed loss adjusters who had particular experience which the applicant lacked. Therefore we cannot say that the respondents acted unreasonably in selecting the applicant for redundancy."
28:
"If we look at the whole situation where the applicant discussed and accepted the package, we cannot see that the respondents acted unreasonably and, therefore, this application for compensation for unfair dismissal fails first of all because there was no dismissal, and secondly, if there was a dismissal, it was a fair dismissal."
In the judgment of this Tribunal, the Industrial Tribunal were entitled to reach the conclusions that they did reach upon both questions, that is, whether there was a dismissal and if there was, whether the dismissal was unfair. They plainly considered the evidence with care and upon their own reasoning, which is the only material at present before us, we see nothing perverse about their decision and nothing in it which would justify the intervention of this Tribunal.The Appellant has had an opportunity to appear before us. He, by his Notice of Appeal, refers to letters. However, we decide the case on the material before us, having been told that the usual procedure for notifying an Appellant has been followed and the Appellant has not appeared to develop the arguments which by reference to documents, he has put in his grounds of Appeal. In those circumstances and for the reasons we have given, this Appeal must be dismissed.