Appeal No. EAT/1199/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 13 December 2001

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR D CHADWICK
MR G H WRIGHT MBE

MISS R BARNES	APPELLANT

JAMES KIMBER MAGAZINES LTD	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised 

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	Mr P Draycott
Representative
Fulham Legal Advice Centre
679a Fulham Road
London SW6 5PZ	
For the Respondent	No appearance or 
representation by or 
on behalf of the Respondent

JUDGE D M LEVY QC

1	This is an appeal by Miss Rebecca Barnes in the following circumstances.  On 23 April 2000 she made a complaint to an Industrial Tribunal that she had been unfairly dismissed by the Respondent to this appeal, James Kimber Magazines Ltd.  

2	There was a hearing of her complaint on 20 July at London Central, where Mr Draycott of Counsel appeared for her, and a solicitor for the Respondent.  The Tribunal dealt with the case both of unfair dismissal and compensation on the same day, and they awarded to the Appellant the total sum of £2,349.75.  It was clear from her IT1 that a claim was being made for her car expenses and the consequent loss as regards her unfair dismissal, the Tribunal found that she was unfairly dismissed but does not appear to have dealt with that at all in making the award of £2,349.75, making appropriate deductions.  

3	Because of the omission, there is an appeal here.  It is apparent to us that there was an omission.  Mr Draycott who appeared below said that he cannot remember dealing with this in his final speech, but nonetheless, it was in the IT1 and it does mention the car expenses featured in the Decision.

4	It would be obviously expensive to remit it to a Tribunal for a further hearing and, unusually, the Respondent has been debarred from appearing because it did not send in the appropriate Notices, so we have the choice of either sending it back to the Tribunal for further consideration or substituting a figure ourselves.  

5	In the particular circumstances of this case, where it would be uneconomic for there to be a further hearing before the Tribunal, we have thought it appropriate, notwithstanding the absence of the Respondent, to substitute a figure for ourselves of the award.  Taking account of all the appropriate deductions, we think the appropriate figure is £1000.  We will therefore allow the appeal and increase the total awarded appropriate by £1000.