[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Burton v. Matrice Ltd [2000] UKEAT 659_00_2710 (27 October 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/659_00_2710.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 659_00_2710, [2000] UKEAT 659__2710

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	IN PERSON


 


MR JUSTICE CHARLES:

1. This appeal comes before us today by way of a preliminary hearing pursuant to our Practice Direction. Our task is to consider whether or not it raises a point of law that is reasonably arguable. The parties to the appeal are a Mr Burton who is the Appellant and was the Applicant below and a company called Matrice Ltd.
2. The appeal is against the decision of a Chairman of an Employment Tribunal sitting alone on 24 February 2000 at London (North). The decision of the Tribunal was that

"There was no unauthorised deduction from the Applicant's wages and no failure to provide a written statement of particulars of reasons for the Applicant's dismissal. The complaints therefore failed and are dismissed."

3. Mr Burton has appeared before us today and helpfully provided a Skeleton Argument before the hearing. That Skeleton Argument focuses attention on the finding in respect of wages, namely the dismissal of his claim and that there had been an unauthorised deduction from wages and does not deal with the alleged failure to provide a written statement of particulars.
4. Also orally Mr Burton did not raise the second point. In our judgment he was correct not to raise that second point. It does not raise a reasonably arguable point of law. There was a letter and the issue was only as to the confidentiality clause in it and indeed, this point plainly does not constitute the focus of Mr Burton's present complaint.
5. The focus of his complaint is that he says that at the time he took up employment promises were made to him that he would be paid commission at a certain rate. It seems to us that the Chairman of the Employment Tribunal accepted his evidence as to what was discussed in this respect. However, the Chairman goes on to conclude that that promise did not form part of the terms of Mr Burton's contract and that in addition any such promise was too uncertain to be capable of enforcement.
6. We can understand why Mr Burton feels aggrieved, having regard to the fact that it was accepted that the conversation he relies on took place and we have some sympathy for him. However, the issue for us is whether or not the Employment Tribunal have erred in law and we are unable to see that there is a reasonably arguable point that it did notwithstanding that we understand why Mr Burton feels that having had the conversation he relies on with his employers he should have been paid commission.
7. It follows that we must dismiss this appeal.