Cobrawatch Services Ltd v Hoey [1999] UKEAT 1346_98_2303

EAT

Cobrawatch Services Ltd v Hoey

[1999] UKEAT 1346_98_2303 · 1999-03-23

MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT) : The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law in an appeal which Cobrawatch Services Ltd, the appellants, wish to make against the unanimous decision of an Employment Tribunal held at London (North) on 22nd May 1998, which held that the applicant, Mr Hoey, was entitled to compensation in the sum of £11,930 in respect of his unfair dismissal by Cobrawatch, and to a further sum of £2,946 in relation to the non-payment of wages due to him.

The initial decision of the Employment Tribunal on liability was given on 28th January 1998. The hearing against which there is an appeal relates only to the quantification in the light of the tribunal's finding on liability. What happened was that at the commencement of the proceedings on the quantum hearing strong objection was taken by Mr Igor, who represented Cobrawatch Services Ltd, to the tribunal's initial decision. The Employment Tribunal quite rightly advised him that the only way he could make a complaint about that other decision was to appeal it. But by this time he was out of time for lodging such an appeal.

There was something of a kerfuffle at that stage. But Mr Igor remained throughout the proceedings, as we understand the Employment Tribunal's decision, although he regarded the proceedings as a joke and barely, if at all, participated in them.

The grounds of appeal set out in the Notice of Appeal, which was lodged here on 13th July 1998, was this:

"The tribunal's decision to refuse to allow the Appellants to adduce relevant evidence, namely: (a) a statement from National Westminster Bank plc for the current account of Elliott Igor with an entry showing that a payment of £14,000 was made by Elliott Igor to the Respondent on 9th June 1997; and (b) the oral evidence of Evans Igor;

constituted a substantive irregularity in the proceedings."

When this case was called on there was no attendance from Mr Igor. Previously, his solicitors had informed the Employment Appeal Tribunal that they were no longer instructed to act on his behalf. That letter was received by the Employment Appeal Tribunal yesterday.

We have looked at the papers in this case and at the tribunal's decision. We can see no error of law that is remotely arguable. This is a case where Mr Igor has misunderstood, I think, the nature of these tribunal proceedings, and has not been willing to participate in the normal way in relation to them. Accordingly, it is an appeal without any merit and should be dismissed at this time.