SPRODON PRESS LTD v MR D GROAKE [1999] UKEAT 74_99_2907

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
BAILII case number: [1999] UKEAT 74_99_2907Case No Appeal No. EAT/74/99Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
Between
SPRODON PRESS LTDAPPELLANTMR D GROAKERESPONDENT
Before
His Honour Judge D M LevyDate 29 July 1999
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellants MR P OXLEY (Representative) Instructed By: Messrs Jacksons Solicitors Shipgate House Shipgate Street Chester CH1 1RT JUDGE LEVY: This is an appeal by an employer "the Appellant" following a hearing at an Employment Tribunal sitting in Liverpool on 23 October 1998 on a complaint by the Respondent to the Appeal ("the Respondent") that he had been unfairly dismissed. The Extended Reasons for the decision ("the merits decision") were sent to the parties on 1 December 1998. There was a remedies hearing on 7 December 1998. The Decision included Extended Reasons for the Employment Tribunal's order that the Appellant pay £11,247 to the Respondent was sent to the parties on 7 January 1999 ("the quantum decision"). A Notice of Appeal was sent to this Tribunal dated 4 January 1999 and was received on 5 January 1999. We had understood that this appeal was against the merits decision. Mr Oxley, a clerk dealing with Tribunal matters in the firm of solicitors who have been retained by the Appellant tells us that it was intended to be a Notice of Appeal against both decisions. Given the date of the Notice of Appeal we have found that difficult to follow.[2]However, on the merits of the appeal, there is first of all an allegation of bias by the Tribunal. What it is said is that on the hearing of the merits application, no weight was given to evidence of a Mr Machell as to the date on which an incident occurred. Witnesses for the Respondents said took place on 25 June 1998, whilst the Appellant said it took place on 4 June. There was evidence below that Mr Machell's evidence was supported by one witness who was and one who was not present when the incident took place. It was suggested that the failure to reflect Mr Machell's evidence showed bias. The Tribunal's findings on this incident are found in 7(ix) of the Extended Reasons.[3]We have carefully looked through the decision. It is quite apparent from the four corners of the decision why the Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Respondent to reach the decision that the incident took place on 4 June 1998. A Tribunal does not have to refer to all evidence which it hears in the course of probably a very long day. A second reason advanced for alleging bias is that after the merits hearing had been concluded and the parties were awaiting the Tribunal's Extended Reasons for its decision, evidence was obtained by the Appellant that some of the evidence to the Tribunal by the Respondent was suspect. Learning of this, the solicitor whom the Respondent had consulted wrote a letter to the Tribunal, mentioning a possible misunderstanding which might have occurred at the hearing. Account of this letter was later taken at the quantum hearing. Mr Oxley tells me that his firm also wrote a letter to the Tribunal. Although he has sworn an affidavit to support the allegation of bias, he has made no reference to his firm's letter.[4]What is quite apparent is neither side made any application to Tribunal to have further evidence heard on the merits hearing and, not unnaturally, in the decision promulgated on 2 December, no mention is made of the additional information sent to the Chairman after the conclusion of the hearing. We do not think that the failure to deal with receipt of one or more letters between 28 October 1998 and 1 December 1998 in any way shows bias on the part of the Chairman, or any irregularity by the Tribunal. There is nothing in our judgment which shows that the complaint of bias could possibly be sustained if this matter goes to a further hearing.[5]The third matter on which Mr Oxley has addressed us was that, in the quantum award, no account was taken by the Tribunal of the alleged behaviour of the Respondent. In so far as there does not appear to be an appeal against the quantum award sent to this Tribunal, strictly this matter is not before us. However we note that in paragraph 4 of the Extended Reasons for the Decision on the quantum hearing there is this said:
"We had found, 'inter alia', that as the applicant had been dismissed by the respondents and the respondents had not put forward any reason for dismissal in the event that we found that he had been dismissed, he had been unfairly dismissed. In the circumstances we were satisfied that he could not have caused or contributed towards his own dismissal."
[6]That reflects the contents of paragraph 10 of the merits decision, which Mr Oxley accepted in his submission before us, was unappealable.[7]In the circumstances we do not think there is anything to go forward to a full hearing on this appeal, accordingly, while thanking Mr Oxley for his submissions, we will dismiss the Appeal at this stage.