[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Curd v Smyth [1997] UKEAT 342_97_1310 (13 October 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/342_97_1310.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 342_97_1310

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

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: This is an appeal from a decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at Brighton. The hearing took place on 8th October 1996 and the decision was promulgated on 10th January 1997.

It was an application whereby Mr Smyth was seeking to recover certain sums of money which he claimed had been unlawfully deducted from his wages. The matter was considered by the Industrial Tribunal which made certain findings, the result of which was that in respect of one of Mr Smyth's claims, a sum of £490.55, there was a finding that there had been an unlawful deduction.

Mr Curd, the employer, seeks to appeal against that decision and today the matter is listed for preliminary hearing.

On 25th September 1997 Mr Curd wrote to the Employment Appeal Tribunal saying that he would be unable to attend the hearing today "due to unforeseen problems with the restaurant building works currently in progress." He went on to say that he wished to attend in person, but there were major problems and he requested an adjournment of the preliminary hearing until after the end of November 1997. By a letter dated 26th September 1997, the Registrar of the Employment Appeal Tribunal wrote to Mr Curd indicating that she had decided and directed that his appeal remain in the list for today. So far as we can see, nothing more has been heard from Mr Curd and he has not sought to appeal that decision of the Registrar. In all the circumstances, we feel disposed to deal with the matter today.

We have given it consideration. Mr Curd seeks to challenge the finding and also alleges bias on the part of the tribunal. As to the challenge to the finding, this was entirely a factual matter which the Industrial Tribunal considered properly and we do not find in the Notice of Appeal any arguable point of law relating to the primary finding.

So far as the allegation of bias is concerned, we have considered whether this would have any prospect of success at a final hearing. In our judgment, it would not. In all the circumstances, therefore, Mr Curd's appeal is dismissed.