Appeal No. EAT/1162/02/ST

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 11 April 2003

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PROPHET
MR P DAWSON OBE
MISS C HOLROYD

MR L S BENNETT	APPELLANT

SOMERFIELD STORES LIMITED	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED	

JUDGE PROPHET

1.	After a two-day hearing held on 29 and 30 July 2002 followed by a Chambers meeting on 9 October 2002 an Employment Tribunal at Stratford under the chairmanship of Mr Scannell in a reserved decision found that Mr Bennett was not unfairly dismissed.  Mr Bennett was represented by Counsel at the Employment Tribunal hearing.

2.	A Notice of Appeal prepared for Mr Bennett by solicitors on his behalf was presented to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 20 November 2002.  Directions were made by His Honour Judge Altman in Chambers on 11 December 2002 that the appeal be set down for a preliminary hearing and that a written skeleton argument be submitted by the Appellant.  There has been no such skeleton argument presented and enquiries from this Tribunal have resulted in no response from Mr Bennett as to whether he is minded to attend to pursue his appeal.  

3.	Today we are holding that Preliminary Hearing and he has not so attended.  A telephone call has been made to him, which has produced an answerphone response only.  We have decided therefore that it is appropriate to deal with this appeal on the papers.

4.	The Notice of Appeal contains almost entirely challenges to the Tribunal’s findings of fact which it is not our function to disturb in the absence of perversity.  We should mention that the Notice of Appeal does specifically draw attention to a change in the grounds for dismissal, but the Employment Tribunal’s reasons deal fully and we consider adequately at paragraph 30 with that point.  Indeed the reasons appear to us to deal impeccably with all the relevant issues which came before the Employment Tribunal.

5.	We can discern no point of law from which we could say that there is an arguable case which would justify our allowing this case to proceed to a full hearing.  Accordingly this appeal is dismissed at this stage.