Beadlow Manor Plc v Callan [1997] UKEAT 827_97_0311

EAT

Beadlow Manor Plc v Callan

[1997] UKEAT 827_97_0311 · 1997-11-03

MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY : This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Beadlow Manor Plc against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal which was held in Bedford on 14th March 1997. The Industrial Tribunal was dealing with claims made by Mrs Callan in respect of which she was partially, but not wholly, successful. She failed in a claim in relation to holiday pay, but more significantly, she succeeded in claims for one month's salary in lieu of notice and for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination. She was awarded compensation in the sum of £8,275.

The reasons given by the Industrial Tribunal show that they were satisfied that she was dismissed by reason of pregnancy and that her dismissal was therefore automatically unfair. It was also the result of unlawful discrimination on grounds of her sex.

We do not propose to recite the details of the factual findings. The position is that although the matter is listed today for a preliminary hearing, there is no attendance on behalf of Beadlow Manor Plc. Enquires by the tribunal indicate that the managing director or somebody on behalf of that company has been contacted by telephone and claims some misunderstanding as to date. However, we have looked at the case in the round and considered whether it is in the interests of justice for the preliminary hearing to be put back to a later date. We have decided that it is not in the interests of justice so to do.

The grounds of appeal set out by Beadlow Manor Plc are in the following terms:

"We are appealing against the tribunal decision and that we request extension of time due to the fact that the owner is recovering from a heart operation and that the company is just taken over under new management, and would like to have legal representation, as the company has not broken any employment rule and the tribunal decision is unjustified."

Suffice it to say that the extension of time was granted by the Registrar, but when we ask ourselves the question whether the grounds as set out in a document dated 2nd May, and not supplemented since, disclose any arguable ground of appeal based on any apparent error of law, we have to come to the conclusion that there is nothing in the documentation whatsoever which can dispose us to the view that this appeal has any prospect of success. In the circumstances, therefore, it is dismissed.