MR D MARSHALL v HARDYS & HANSONS PLC [2001] UKEAT 0878_01_1009
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
BAILII case number: [2001] UKEAT 0878_01_1009Case No Appeal No. EAT/0878/01Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
Between
MR D MARSHALLAPPELLANTHARDYS & HANSONS PLCRESPONDENT
Before
MISS RECORDER SLADE QCDR D GRIEVES CBEMRS T A MARSLANDDate 10 September 2001
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT MISS RECORDER SLADE QC This is a Preliminary Hearing of an appeal by Mr Marshall against the decision of an Employment Tribunal which dismissed his claim for damages for the manner of his dismissal. Those are damages sought in his claim for breach of contract. Neither Mr Marshall nor his representative are here today. We note that at the Employment Tribunal, Mr Marshall was represented by Mr Green, a Solicitor. A Notice of Appeal was settled naming J B Pashley & Co as representative acting for him and, at paragraph 4, Mr Green is noted as being 'of J B Pashley & Co'. A Notice of Hearing of today's hearing was sent out on 26 July 2001 to J B Pashley & Co. A notice which was shown to us was returned signed by Mr Green, who we take to be of J B Pashley & Co by reason of the history which we have outlined. That notice signed on 28 August 2001 indicated that he did not intend to be present at the hearing. In those circumstances notwithstanding the non appearance of the Appellant or any representative of the Appellant, we proceed to consider this appeal.[2]The basis upon which the appeal is brought is that it is said that the Employment Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the case of Johnson v Unisys Limited [2001] IRLR 279 in the House of Lords, a case which was referred to in the Tribunal's decision. Mr Green, for Mr Marshall, appears to have argued before the Tribunal that Mr Marshall was entitled to damages for his dismissal by reason of the manner of his dismissal. It appears that Mr Green argued that the contract of employment referred to disciplinary rules and codes which were available to Mr Marshall and that there was a failure to obey those rules and that failure constituted a breach of contract.[3]The Originating Application had recorded that Mr Marshall made complaint about the timing of his dismissal. He alleged that the dismissal and its timing was chosen to cause both himself and his family as much distress as possible in circumstances which we will not go into in this judgment. In our view, the Employment Tribunal correctly applied Johnson v Unisys Ltd and correctly referred to the passage in the speech of Lord Hoffman reported in [2001] ICR Reports 480 at 497 E:
"If wrongful dismissal is the only cause of action nothing can be recovered for mental distress or damage to reputation."
[4]In our judgment the Employment Tribunal did not err in law in dismissing Mr Marshall's claim for damages for breach of contract. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal.