MR H S BACHRA v 1) R F BROOKES LTD 2) MS A JONES [2000] UKEAT 1070_00_1312
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Appellant JUDGE D M LEVY QC This is an appeal by Mr Bachra, following a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Leicester on 31 May 2000. The decision was sent to the parties on 29 June. The issue between the parties was whether on a preliminary matter, the Applicant's complaint relating to his non-appointment with Charnwood Foods Ltd, had been presented in time, and if it had not been, would it be just and equitable to allow it to proceed.[2]There was a complaint about race relations arising out of the way all the Respondents had handled a grievance, which had been presented within a period of three months, which was going to go to a full hearing.[3]But as to the other matter, the non-appointment to a position, the Tribunal, having heard from Counsel on behalf of the Applicant below, the Appellant here, and solicitors for the Respondents found that it had not been presented in time. From that appeal by a Notice dated 10 August 2000, the Appellant seeks to appeal.[4]We have had a letter from him today, saying that because of personal circumstances, he is not able to appear, and asking for an adjournment. We have carefully considered that letter, but we feel that, each of us having read the papers carefully, it would not be in his interests for us to allow an adjournment, for reasons which we will explain.[5]At a preliminary hearing of an appeal to this Tribunal, an appeal only proceeds to a full hearing if an arguable point of law is identified for a full Tribunal to consider. In his Notice of Appeal the Appellant stated that, at the hearing, he mentioned that he had advice from a solicitor during the three month period, but in fact that was a failure to take steps to commence proceedings because of pressure garnering evidence. A Tribunal has to make decisions on the evidence which it hears. Once it has heard evidence and formed views on it, this Tribunal cannot interfere with the judgment unless there is a point of law involved. The Appellant had the advantage of being represented by Counsel on that occasion. We are sure that if there had been a point on time, which could properly have been taken, on his behalf, it would have been.[6]We observe that he lives in Leicester, it would be a pity if we adjourned this matter because he has not come here today. For him to travel from Leicester some time in 2001 when he would only hear from the Tribunal, in person, what we are saying today would be pointless. He has had his day in Court on this point. He is not entitled to a re-hearing where the findings, by the Tribunal, are findings which they were entitled to make on the evidence before them. In the circumstances, we will dismiss this appeal at this stage.