BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Lowerson v Pembroke Hotel [1997] UKEAT 1252_96_1402 (14 February 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/1252_96_1402.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 1252_96_1402 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MR L D COWAN
MS B SWITZER
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | NO APPEARANCE BY OR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT |
MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law raised by the prospective appeal by Miss Lowerson against a decision, in her favour, by an Industrial Tribunal that her employers, the Metropole Hotel (Holdings) Ltd trading as The Pembroke Hotel, had unlawfully deducted from her wages an amount of some £14.00p.
The reasoning of the Tribunal is set out in its Decision of 8 October 1996 and represents a careful consideration of the details of the complaint which was before them.
The Notice of Appeal in this case makes a number of specific contentions which we have taken into account before arriving at our conclusion in this case. Miss Lowerson has not appeared. She is not required to do so. Indeed, she indicates that she has some contempt for the Tribunal process in general. We do not hold that against her. We have considered nonetheless, the points which she has made.
We can dismiss the first point to which she refers that there was a reference to the year 1966 as opposed to 1996. That can be regarded, and should be regarded, as a mere typographical error. She suggests that the Industrial Tribunal chairperson had a wage slip in front of her which had been stolen from her bed-sitting-room and the Applicant is questioning how it came about that she had that available.
As I understand it, at the hearing the employers were represented by a Ms Eley, who presented documents and a written statement to the Industrial Tribunal and we assume that amongst the papers, which were submitted on behalf of the employers, was the pay slip to which she was referring.
The rest of the Notice of Appeal really sets out in considerable detail the evidence which she presented to the Industrial Tribunal which, for their part, was fully dealt with. We are sorry that the Appellant should regard the whole Tribunal in Manchester as a complete waste of her time and that she was not dealt with properly. The evidence from the Decision would suggest that careful consideration had been given to her case and, indeed, the Tribunal was accepting what the Appellant said to the Chairman, rather than relying on what the employers were submitting were the facts without giving any evidence about it.
We have to say that there is no point of law raised by this prospective Notice of Appeal. That being the case, we have no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, since our jurisdiction is confined to dealing with points of law only.
Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed.
