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 >> Ansari v Boulton [1997] UKEAT 578_97_2310 (23 October 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/578_97_2310.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 578_97_2310 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE LORD JOHNSTON
MRS E HART
MR A E R MANNERS
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE
| For the Appellant | NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT |
LORD JOHNSTON: This is the judgment of the tribunal in relation to a preliminary hearing in the appeal by Dr Ansari, appellant against Mrs J Boulton. This case called before us in relation to a preliminary hearing on the grounds of appeal advanced by the employer in respect of a finding in the Industrial Tribunal that the employee had been unfairly dismissed. Despite strenuous attempts to ascertain whether the appellant or his representatives were in building, there was no appearance nor any communication to this office that there was a reason why there was no appearance. Given the fact that we commenced consideration of this case at 11.58 a.m., it being scheduled for 10.30 a.m., we felt able to deal the matter in absentia.
That we can do with considerable brevity. The papers disclose upon the evidence as found by the tribunal that, to put it mildly, the employee was treated extremely badly by the employer; that there was ample material before the tribunal to conclude that she was constructively if not actually dismissed; the attempt by the appellant at this stage to complain about the fact that he was not allowed to introduce new evidence was quite competently and quite properly dealt with by the lower tribunal, in as much that every opportunity was available to have brought the relevant evidence relating to the meeting with which it was concerned being crucial to the now appellant's, then employer's case, and in our opinion the tribunal acted quite properly in taking the steps that it did.
Looking at the matter overall, we are therefore firmly of the view that this case discloses no question of law suitable for consideration by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and the application will be dismissed.
