[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Vibroplant Plc v Johnson [1994] UKEAT 397_93_0802 (8 February 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/397_93_0802.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 397_93_802, [1994] UKEAT 397_93_0802

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 397_93_0802

Appeal No. EAT/397/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 8 February 1994

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

MISS A MACKIE OBE

MR R TODD

---

VIBROPLANT PLC          APPELLANTS

MR N JOHNSON          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants MR D BURTON

(SOLICITOR)

Messrs Kirbys

Solicitors

32 Victoria Avenue

Harrogate

HG1 5PR


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: This is an ex parte hearing of an appeal by Vibroplant Ltd against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at Norwich on 31 March 1993. We understand that it was a two day hearing where the Industrial Tribunal unanimously decided that the Respondent to the proposed appeal was unfairly dismissed. The Tribunal was satisfied that the said Respondent contributed to his dismissal and it was just and equitable that a reduction of 25% should be made from his compensatory award. The decision was sent to the parties on 10 May 1993 and the appeal was launched on 20 May 1993.

Basically, the main ground for the appeal is that the Full Reasons for the decision are inadequate and in that connection Mr Burton, who said all that could be said for the Appellant, has referred us to the decision of Meek -v- City of Birmingham County Council [1987] IRLR 250, where the Master of Rolls indicated that a full decision should be given.

We can see the burden of Mr Burton's complaint but, from the Reasons we can see what the allegations were - we can see from the reasons three separate allegations were made by the employer. On the first (para 2 of the Reasons) the Tribunal accepted the employers' contentions. On the second and third (paras 3 & 4) they accepted those of the employee.

The reason the employer failed below was because of the procedure which was used and led to the dismissal and which is set out in paragraph 5 of the Reasons. We are satisfied that what the Tribunal below said there, and in the subsequent paragraphs, are sufficient for us to see that there was an appropriate hearing below and an appropriate award made. We consider that any appeal from their decision would fail and we do not feel that it would be appropriate for the appeal to go forward.

In the circumstances, although paying tribute to the skill with which Mr Burton addressed us this afternoon, we do not consider that there are any grounds of law in this appeal which we accordingly dismiss.