Appeal No. EAT/1432/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 18 June 2002

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR N D WILLIS
MISS S M WILSON

MR K ATTOU	APPELLANT

DINNERD LTD T/A FRESCO CAFÉ BAR	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

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

JUDGE D M LEVY QC

1	This is an appeal by Mr K Attou (‘the Appellant’) from a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting in London (South) on 10 May 2001.  The issue before the Tribunal was whether the Appellant was unfairly dismissed and if so, what compensation he should receive.  

2	The decision of the Tribunal was that he was unfairly dismissed but on contribution they held that he greatly contributed to his dismissal and they proposed to make a 75% reduction of the damages awarded.  That they did, which led to dismissal.  Because of the decision, the Appellant appealed on a number of grounds, among others that the Tribunal hearing found fault with the procedure should not have found that the Appellant would have been dismissed in any event and failed to consider the ACAS Code of Practice.

3	The Appellant originally had legal aid for the purposes of this appeal and that legal aid was withdrawn, as often happens, very shortly before the hearing of an appeal.  He was advised of this and chose not to attend himself before the hearing today.  We have considered all the matters which are in his Notice of Appeal.

4	It seems to us that the Tribunal very fairly set out the facts and came to a decision in law to which they were entitled to come.  The reduction for contributory fault is a matter which the Tribunal properly considered and, on our reading of the Extended Reasons to have the conclusion stated.  In the circumstances, we do not consider there is an arguable point to put forward.  Accordingly, we will dismiss this appeal at this stage.

5	We should add that both the Appellant and his former solicitor sought an adjournment of this hearing because of his inability to attend.  Having regards to the fact that we have read the papers and reached a firm conclusion that there is not an arguable point to go forward, it seems to us appropriate to refuse his application for an adjournment.  In those circumstances we heard the appeal in his absence.