[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Fielding v Thompson May Ltd [1996] UKEAT 992_95_2003 (20 March 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/992_95_2003.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 992_95_2003

[New search] [Help]

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 992_95_2003

Appeal No. EAT/992/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 20th March 1996

HIS HONOUR JUDGE N BUTTER Q.C.

MR P DAWSON OBE

MISS C HOLROYD

---

MRS S FIELDING          APPELLANT

THOMPSON MAY LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

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


 


JUDGE BUTTER Q.C.: This is listed before us as an appeal by Mrs Fielding against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The hearing was on 21st and 22nd June 1995 and the extended reasons were sent to the parties on 27th July 1995.

The unanimous decision of the tribunal was that the applicant was not unfairly dismissed.

She was dissatisfied with that decision and by a letter which has been treated as a Notice of Appeal dated 7th September 1995 she said:

"Grounds of appeal - Newcastle Tribunal have made numerous errors which I feel have made the tribunal reach a wrong decision, and that a decision has been made which is inconsistent with the evidence that was brought before the tribunal."

It appears that Mrs Fielding was minded not pursue her appeal. But the matter remains in doubt. It has been listed before us today, she has not attended and we think it appropriate to deal with it on the basis of the information before us.

Mrs Fielding has not provided particulars of the errors which she complains of. The decision of the tribunal was expressed in this way. They set out the background. Mrs Fielding had been employed as an administration clerk. Documentation had gone missing and she was dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal went through the facts in much detail. Their key findings are in paragraph 7 of their decision when they say:

"We find ... that the applicant was dismissed and the reason for dismissal shown and proven has been conduct. It was undoubtedly a sufficient reason and the respondents, we are satisfied believed that there was conduct here, of some gravity and they believed it on reasonable grounds which they reasonably investigated in all the circumstances."

They then referred to the case of British Home Stores v Burchell and said:

"We have no doubt, in our unanimous judgment, that this application has to be dismissed for this was a fair dismissal, and we so rule."

There is no material before us to persuade us that the decision was wrong, either as a matter of law or that it was in any way perverse. In these circumstances and for these reasons it follows that the appeal is dismissed.