Appeal No. EAT/655/92
	 I N T E R N A L    

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 19 March 1993

	Before

	HIS HONOUR JUDGE J PEPPITT QC

	MR D G DAVIES

	MR K HACK JP

MR B J GILLARD	APPELLANT

CRAPPER & SONS LTD	RESPONDENTS

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

	PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY
OR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

	

	JUDGE PEPPITT QC:  This is the Preliminary Hearing heard by us Ex-Parte of an appeal by Mr Gillard from a decision of the Bristol Industrial Tribunal made on 27 February last year.  The decision was that the Appellant Mr Gillard, had been unfairly dismissed by the Respondents, his employers, but that the Appellant had caused or contributed to his own dismissal to the extent of 100% and that accordingly it was not just or equitable that any remedy be awarded.

	The grounds of Mr Gillard's appeal are set out in his Notice of Appeal amplified by order of this Court in an Affidavit which he subsequently swore on 5 August 1992.  His complaints are substantially of procedural irregularities in the course of the hearing.  Because of the nature of those complaints the President of the Tribunal who heard the case, was invited to provide his comments and we have had the benefit of a letter from him dated 18 August 1992 in which the specific complaints made both in the Notice of Appeal and in Mr Gillard's subsequent Affidavit, were answered seriatim.

	This morning the Court received a letter from Messrs Morrison & Masters, Solicitors of 17/20 Commercial Road, Swindon, in which they indicate that neither they nor their client propose to be present at the hearing today but invite us to consider the matter in their absence.  The letter ends after the recitation of two or three paragraphs of argument:

"We trust therefore that the Appeal Tribunal will allow this case to go forward for full Hearing".

We have considered with some care all of the documents to which I have referred and we have also referred ourselves to Rule 8(1) of the Tribunal Rules which reads as follows:

"The tribunal shall conduct the hearing in such manner as it considers most suitable to the clarification of the issues before it and generally to the just handling of the proceedings; it shall so far as appears to it appropriate seek to avoid formality in its proceedings and it shall not be bound by any enactment or rule of law relating to the admissibility of evidence in proceedings before the courts of law."

	We have considered all of Mr Gillard's complaints in the light of that sub-rule and in the light of the matters raised in the Chairman's letter and we have come to the conclusion having done so, that there is no substance in this appeal which accordingly will stand dismissed.