Appeal No.	 EAT/615/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 11 November 1996

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MRS J M MATTHIAS
MR R SANDERSON OBE

MR R PURCHASE	APPELLANT

ELLIS & BUCKLE	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON	

	JUDGE LEVY QC:   Mr Richard Purchase wishes to appeal against the decision of a Southampton Industrial Tribunal which sat on 1st March 1996. Then the Industrial Tribunal held that he had been dismissed by the proposed respondent to the appeal, the firm of loss adjusters, Ellis & Buckle. 

	The appellant was a senior loss adjuster, whose employment commenced on 1st August 1984 and terminated on 4th June 1993. The appellant commenced an application before an Industrial Tribunal on 18th August 1993. The respondents entered their Notice of Appearance on 12th October 1993. Paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Notice of Appearance read as follows:

“1.	The Applicant was employed at the Respondent’s Portsmouth Office.
2.	On 12th March 1993 at a pre-arranged meeting the Respondent explained to the Applicant that falling work levels in the Portsmouth region necessitated an adjuster being made redundant. The Applicant was informed that in view of his poor performance about which he had previously been warned, he was being considered for redundancy.
3.	By a letter of 28th March 1993 the Applicant agreed to accept redundancy providing a suitable package could be agreed. In return the Applicant agreed to waive his rights to an unfair dismissal or unfair redundancy claim.
4.	On 2nd April 1993 the Applicant indicated to the Respondent acceptance of the redundancy package.
5.	On 6th April 1993 the Applicant was made redundant with effect from 4th June. A payment of £4,000 was made in full and final settlement of any claims the Applicant might have against the Respondent.”

	There was a hearing before an Industrial Tribunal, particulars of which we do not have. This resulted in an appeal to this court. The appeal resulted in the matter being remitted to the Industrial Tribunal to determine whether or not the appellant was dismissed. 

	The hearing of that issue took place on 1st March 1996, when the appellant was represented by a solicitor and the respondent by Counsel. The decision of the Industrial Tribunal was that he was dismissed. The extended reasons of this Industrial Tribunal were sent to the parties on 29th April  1996. 

	Mr Purchase has appeared before in person today in his application to appeal from that decision.

	We have all considered carefully the reasons of the Industrial Tribunal. We have also considered carefully the skeleton argument which Mr Purchase has presented and his oral submissions before us today, which, if we may say so, he has presented admirably. 

	In our judgment, the Industrial Tribunal who heard evidence were entitled to find the facts which they found, and to reach the decision which they did on those facts.

	Mr Purchase’s case in essence, is that he was dismissed and did not leave following a consensual agreement. In this respect he relies upon a letter particularly of 6th April 1993 which was referred to by the Industrial Tribunal in their extended reasons. He has handed to us a copy of that letter, which I will read. It is dated 6th April 1993:

“Dear Richard,
Following consultation with you and various conversations, I must formally confirm to you our decision to make you redundant upon completion of your notice period. Under the terms of your contract your last day will be Friday, 4th June 1993. In the meantime, we will of course be happy to accommodate your reasonable request for time off to seek suitable alternative employment. So far as your holiday entitlement is concerned, I am happy for you to decide whether or not you would wish to take your holiday entitlement or to receive payment in lieu. 
[There then follows the paragraph on which Mr Purchase particularly relies:]
In the course of our discussions, you confirmed that it would not be your intention to challenge the redundancy decision, and I hope that you remain committed to this. In the unlikely event you decide to reconsider your position and challenge the basis for dismissal as being unfair, then I would wish to reserve the position of the company so far as the grounds for dismissal are concerned. 
[The letter continues:]
With regards to the financial arrangements, I confirm that you will be paid as normal up to 4th June 1993, additionally I am arranging for you to receive a further payment of £4,000 which is not subject to tax. This sum is being paid to you ex-gratia as severance pay and will be made as full and final settlement of any claims you may have against the company. 
Geraldine Victor will be in touch with you in the near future about your pension options, but in the mean time, if you have any further queries please do not hesitate to give me a call.”
[The letter was signed by the Regional Director of company or on his behalf - Paul Wright.]

	The Industrial Tribunal heard evidence from the parties and carefully considered that letter. They came to the conclusion that there was a consensual agreement between the parties, albeit there was something of a fiction in it. In so far as Mr Purchase was a party to the fiction, it seems to us that he is not now entitled to complain. The Industrial Tribunal were entitled to reach the decision which it did.

	In those circumstances, we can see nothing wrong with the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, and it would be wrong therefore for this appeal to go further. We therefore dismiss the appeal.