Appeal No.	EAT/1224/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 17 May 2000

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NELSON
LORD DAVIES OF COITY CBE
MISS S M WILSON

MS Y TROFINISEN-ALLPORT	APPELLANT

MR C LEPAGE	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	APPELLANT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED.	

MR JUSTICE NELSON:

1.	This is an appeal in respect of a decision of 8 January 1999 when it was decided that the Applicant’s complaint of breach of contract succeeded in part and an award was made of damages in the sum of £1,038.  An appeal has been lodged which was to be heard initially on 31 January 2000, but that hearing was postponed at the request of the Appellant.  The matter was next to be heard on 31 March 2000 but the Tribunal itself adjourned that hearing because there was not a court available to hear the matter.  The Appellant was notified of the postponement until today’s date, 17 May 2000, and Miss Swain, who was here to represent her has satisfied herself by making enquiries of listing that the Appellant was duly and appropriately informed of the hearing date.  In spite of that the Appellant has not attended today in order to present her appeal.  The appeal is against a decision, which in any event was dealt with on the facts.  The evidence of the Respondent was preferred to the evidence of the Appellant’s witnesses, the Chairman of the Tribunal deciding as follows:  

“Having heard both parties give evidence and observed that demeanour whilst so doing I prefer the evidence of Mr Lepage.”

2.	In concluding, he again repeated the fact that he preferred the evidence of Mr Lepage the Respondent, rather than the evidence called on the Appellant’s behalf.  The decision was therefore one of fact and there is nothing which appears in the matters put forward by the Appellant, we have seen, which can in any way suggest that any error of law was made by the Chairman.  In view of the fact that the Appellant has not presented herself in court in order to argue the matter and that on the face of the documents before us, it is entirely a matter of fact and no error of law was made, we dismiss this appeal.