Appeal No.EAT/1204/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 8 March 2002

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLLAND
MR P R A JACQUES CBE
MR J R RIVERS

COMFORT COOLING AND HEATING LTD	APPELLANT

MR F OHENEBENG	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED	

MR JUSTICE HOLLAND

1.	We are concerned here with an appeal from a Decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Watford, the Decision together with Extended Reasons being sent to the parties ultimately on 7 September 2001.  The decision was that the Respondent had unfairly dismissed the Applicant.  There was a further part of the Decision that dealt with compensation.

2.	Averting to the first part of the decision there is a Notice of Appeal from the Respondent employers, which Notice of Appeal was developed by way of further and better particulars.  In those further and better particulars several points are taken by the Respondents in which it is said that the Employment Tribunal is in error.  Those points can be summarised.  There is a point as to continuity of employment and indeed as to who at the material time was the employer of the Applicant.  There is a further point as to whether the Applicant was in the event dismissed or whether he in effect resigned.

3.	So far as those points are concerned two things have to be said.  First, they are not further developed before us here today.  There is a letter from the Respondents to this Tribunal indicating that they will not be attending here but urging us to view the decision of the Employment Tribunal as ‘highly perverse and wrong on a point of law and a travesty of justice’and thereby inviting us to examine the Extended Reasons to see whether any point of law is to be discerned or whether as identified in their Notice of Appeal or otherwise.

4.	For our part, our function today is to see whether indeed there is any such point.  If there be such then it is our duty to identify it and to adjourn this matter for an inter partes hearing.  If we are unable to discern any such point then it is our duty to dismiss the appeal as being on its face quite untenable.   We have carefully considered the Extended Reasons.  That care had been enhanced by a knowledge that there were going to be no representations before us today but we can take the matter shortly.  In the event we can find absolutely no error of law.  The matter seems to be one entirely of fact.  As to the facts we cannot see any basis for contending that there was any misdirection or any perversity at all.  In those circumstances we are quite satisfied that this is an appeal that merits immediate dismissal.  There is no basis that we can find for it being sent further for an inter partes hearing.