[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Tiverton Hotel Ltd v Lawton [1997] UKEAT 132_97_2204 (22 April 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/132_97_2204.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 132_97_2204

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR L GREENE (Representative)


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: This is an appeal by the employer, the Tiverton Hotel Ltd, against a unanimous decision of the Exeter Industrial Tribunal sitting on 1st and 10th to 11th October 1996, that the respondent employee, Miss Emma Lawton, had been both unfairly constructively dismissed and unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds of her sex. She was awarded compensation in respect of both claims totalling £8,350.00. Extended reasons for the tribunal's decision are dated 18th October 1996.

The business of the appellant Company is the Tiverton Hotel in Tiverton, Devon. Mr Leonard Greene is a shareholder in and director of the appellant and is the General Manager of the hotel. Miss Lawton commenced employment at the hotel, aged almost 20, on 12th March 1989 as the Assistant Functions Manager. Later she was to be promoted to acting Deputy Manager. Her employment ended in her resignation which took effect on 25th April 1996.

The case involved a complete conflict of evidence. It was the respondent's case that during the employment she was subjected to a continual course of sexual harassment by Mr Greene, causing her to leave the employment. These allegations were strenuously denied by Mr Greene who called a total of six witnesses in support of his case.

The tribunal preferred the account given by the respondent, and found in her favour. Now there is an appeal.

The appeal is put on two broad grounds; perversity and bias on the part of the Chairman.

Perhaps Mr Greene summed up his appeal when he said:

"I feel strongly about this disgraceful decision!"

In advancing that appeal before us today, he has taken a number of points. He says that the Chairman exhibited bias in that he did not intervene to prevent the respondent's mother name-calling during the course of the hearing. He also contends that the Chairman's observation in his extended reasons that there was really no supporting evidence on either side, completely disregards the witnesses that were called on behalf of the appellant; evidence about the number of telephone calls made from the hotel to the respondent's home in direct conflict with the respondent's mother's evidence that for a period of about two years Mr Greene was telephoning the respondent's home twice a day. References to Mr Greene's financial position, including a reference to him having a home near the hotel and another one in Dorset to which he retired; as compared with the reference to the respondent being the breadwinner and having a sick mother.

All of this, contends Mr Greene, indicates that the tribunal took against his case, and made it clear that they had done so, and taken in favour of the respondent. This, he says, amounts to an appearance of bias.

Further, he contends that the decision was perverse in that the evidence in his favour was so overwhelming that no reasonable tribunal properly directing itself could accept the account which was put forward by the respondent.

Finally, he complains about the award that was made, which he compares with a fine of £750 imposed on a coach driver responsible for an accident on M4 motorway which killed 10 of his passengers; and he says, that to award interest on the compensation for sex discrimination going back to 1994 is akin to retrospective taxation.

We have taken into account all the submissions which have been made to us today by Mr Greene. This is a preliminary hearing held to determine whether or not this appeal raises any arguable point or points of law to go to a full hearing.

Having considered those submissions, we have concluded that there is no arguable case, either of perversity or of an appearance of bias in the conduct of these proceedings by the tribunal Chairman. In these circumstances, we shall dismiss this appeal.