Appeal No.	EAT/1019/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 1 December 1998

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
MISS A MACKIE OBE
MR A D TUFFIN CBE

PHILFORD DESIGN ENGINEERS LTD	APPELLANTS

MR R J ASTILL	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR D PHILLIPS
(Representative)	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):	This part of the hearing has been concerned with the question as to whether there is an arguable point of law in Mr Phillips’ appeal against the refusal by the Industrial Tribunal to review its original decision.  The review decision was promulgated on 16th April 1998 and the Notice of Appeal in this case was within time in relation to that decision.

	The issue between the parties concerned the amount which was due to the applicant following the decision on liability. Mr Phillips told us, and we accept, that at the hearing before the Industrial Tribunal he presented to them documents which set out the tax tables and a document from his wages department which showed precisely how the figure of £62.74 was calculated, which was the sum that he admitted was due, having regard to the tribunal’s decision on liability. It would appear that the applicant himself had not provided any detailed calculation of his loss, but had worked it out in general terms to be a sum slightly less than that, namely £56 or thereabouts. It would appear that the only reason why the tribunal awarded the sum of £120 was because of some intervention which was made, to the effect that the figure which had been produced by the respondents, that is the employers, did not look right, even though it exceeded the amount which the individual himself had thought looked right.

	The reason why the tribunal refused to conduct a review was because they could see that there was no error by the tribunal staff. There was no new evidence available which was not available and referred to at the hearing and that the interests of justice did not come into play because it only came into play in situations where something had gone radically wrong at the hearing. The tribunal Chairman said this:

“5. ... I can see no evidence of this [that is something going radically wrong] and conclude that the respondent is in effect attempting to appeal against the substance of the decision. Any appeal is, of course, a matter for the Employment Appeal Tribunal.”

	It seems to us arguable that the learned Chairman has taken an over-narrow view as to the interests of justice and what they require. It seems to us to be arguable that presented with the material which was presented to them, they were in a position to conclude that an error had been made in the figure which required to be corrected. On that basis we consider the appeal to be arguable and it will go for a full hearing.

	I stress that the amount involved in this case is slightly less than £60. It does seem to me that the parties would be well-advised to consider their position before the case really gets quite out of control. The amount involved does not justify the enormous time that is being spent on dealing with this issue. It does seem to me that there must be a better way for the parties to resolve their differences. I would hope very much that, although I have allowed the appeal to go through, this will be the last time that we have to look at this matter.