Thoburn v EVE Group Plc [1999] UKEAT 973_98_0103

EAT
Thoburn v EVE Group Plc
[1999] UKEAT 973_98_0103 · 1999-03-01

JUDGE LEVY QC : This appeal is listed for disposal in the following circumstances.

On 4th November 1998 the matter came before another bench for a preliminary hearing pursuant to the new listing direction. There, the tribunal found a number of grounds, not I think mentioned in the Notice of Appeal, on which the matter could go forward, subject to a Notice of Appeal being amended and lodged within 21 days of that date. No such amended Notice of Appeal was lodged within that period. The tribunal wrote a letter to the appellant reminding him of its order, and that letter appears to have not received an answer.In these circumstances, the Notice of Appeal not having been amended, it is not appropriate for the appeal to be allowed to go to a full hearing.It is right to say that there is a short note in the file saying:
"The Grounds upon which the appeal is brought are that the industrial tribunal erred in law in that - monies which may be recovered for training costs incurred by the company must have a written specific agreement stating how the amounts of money will be deducted and from where. Potter v Hunt Contracts Ltd [1992] IRLR 108 , EAT.
That case is not authority for what is stated to be there, where the training costs arise as a matter of contract and not for some other reason. The second matter relied on in the document reads:Secondly a piece of evidence which was relied upon by the Respondent and important to the final decision of the Chair, was not shown to the applicant until the case had begun and therefore the applicant could not produce any evidence to refute the statement."That is not a matter which would normally enable an appeal to succeed.A matter which we understand concerned the Panel which allowed the preliminary appeal to go forward, was that the matter was heard by a Chairman alone in the Employment Tribunal. However, as the Appellant has not made amendments to his Notice of Appeal as required by the earlier panel as a prerequisite to his appeal being heard, we have no alternative other than to dismiss it in its unamended form, which, like the earlier panel, we find raises no sustainable point of law.