Appeal No. 	EAT/333/00 
EAT/473/00
	EAT/516/00 

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 30 June 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D WILCOX
MR P DAWSON OBE
MR J C SHRIGLEY

MRS P WATTS	APPELLANT

MRS G J IVENS	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

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

		

JUDGE WILCOX:

1.	These are appeals of the Appellant, Mrs Watts in relation to three matters.  I can deal with the matters shortly.  Firstly, as to the procedural matters, namely the refusal of the Employment Tribunal to grant adjournments.  It seems to us that on the reasons given that they were matters wholly and properly within their discretion and having looked at the explanations given by the Appellant, we see no reason to interfere with the proper exercise of discretion by the Tribunal concerned.  

2.	I then go to the third matter that relates to the substantive appeal.  It was considered by the Regional Chairman sitting on his own, that he was entitled to do so.  We note that this is a case that concerns a very limited number of facts and also a small amount of money.  She did not attend.  He heard the evidence, on the evidence that he had before him, which we have had the opportunity to see and his findings, cogently and succinctly set out.  

3.	He was perfectly entitled to come to those findings of fact and to draw the conclusion of law, namely of the entitlement of the Applicant to the money concerned.  That in consequence of as he found, we look at paragraph 6 of the extended reasons of a promise made.  There is no reason to interfere with that decision.  There is no arguable matter of law or perversity of finding demonstrated in any of these appeals.  They stand dismissed.