[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Akinpelu v St Peter's Brewery [1998] UKEAT 1316_97_0402 (4 February 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/1316_97_0402.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 1316_97_0402, [1998] UKEAT 1316_97_402

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether Mrs Akinpelu has an arguable point of law to raise in relation to a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at Stratford. By that decision which was sent to the parties on 18th September 1997, the learned Chairman concluded that the reason for the dismissal of the applicant was not because she had asked for written particulars of her contract of employment to which she was entitled under s.1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but because of the poor performance by her of her duties as a chef in the Jerusalem Tavern Public House.

Today Mrs Akinpelu tells us that there was no evidence before the Industrial Tribunal to justify their findings of fact in paragraph 8 of the decision. For example, they heard no evidence from Mr Miles, they may have taken into account a written statement of his which referred to the fact that she had been given warnings, but they cannot have received any direct evidence as to what those warnings were about, since she tells us that Mr Miles did not give evidence.

She also says that the only witness who gave evidence was Mr Wortley, who was not the person who took the decision to dismiss. The decision to dismiss was taken by Mr Sullivan, who, Mrs Akinpelu says she never worked with. She says that on his first day of work, before she had gone into work, she was told by him that she was being dismissed.

In those circumstances, she says that her point of law is this: that there was no material before the Industrial Tribunal on which they could properly have concluded that she was dismissed for the reason which they asserted.

We do not pass any comment about the prospects of success on this appeal. To some extent it will depend on precisely what the nature of the evidence was before the Industrial Tribunal. For this purpose we would request that the Chairman give us the benefit of his Notes of Evidence in relation to this case, so that we can examine the matter when it comes on for a full hearing. The respondents will serve their respondents' notice due time. This will be listed as a Category C case, estimated time half a day, suitable for hearing before His Honour Judge Peter Clark or one of the other circuit judges here.