[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Animadu v Mastercare Service & Distribution Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 755 (26 April 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/755.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 755

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Friday, 26th April 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE BUXTON: This is an application by Mr E A Animadu for permission to appeal from a judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in respect of proceedings heard in January 2002, the judgment being sent to the parties on 18th February 2002. Mr Animadu sought there to appeal from a decision of an Employment Tribunal on 27th October 2000, that tribunal concluding that Mr Animadu's employers had not been in breach of his contract of employment, nor failed to pay him sums due under the contract.
2. I do not intend in this judgment to set out the whole of the factual background found by the two courts. That is set out in very great detail in the judgment of the Employment Tribunal where it sets out the contentions of both parties and a good part of that is repeated by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
3. As I understand it, from the lengthy submissions he has put before this court in writing and from his observations to me today, Mr Animadu complains that either the tribunal misunderstood the nature of his contractual relations with his employers or misapplied the facts of the incident which caused him to be dismissed. It is not particularly easy to pursue that aspect of the matter in more detail.
4. The tribunal was entirely satisfied, having gone into the matter in considerable detail, that the employer had carefully considered the breach that Mr Animadu had committed of his contractual obligations and had properly investigated the case through a formal disciplinary hearing which Mr Animadu attended, at which he was able to give evidence on his own account.
5. It appears to be Mr Animadu's case that because of the terms of his contract he was under no obligation to meet and deal with the calls that the employer complained he had not attended to. He appears to rely for that contention upon the terms of his contract and, in particular, that a very limited contractual obligation was placed on him with regard to meeting and dealing with matters drawn to his attention by his employers.
6. That contention is, in my judgement, misconceived, and the tribunal, with its expertise in industrial relations, was justified in finding it misconceived.
7. Mr Animadu was not entitled to refuse the jobs that the employer wished of him that morning and he is not entitled, as the tribunal found, to put himself out of contact with his employers in the context of those jobs.
8. THE APPLICANT: If you do not mind, I will leave. You can send me the result when you have it. I will leave now, thank you. (The applicant left the court)
9. LORD JUSTICE BUXTON: I record that Mr Animadu has left the court. He gave an entirely courteous explanation of why he was doing so.
10. I continue with the judgment. Mr Animadu acted, as the Employment Tribunal found, entirely unreasonably in that connection. His employer went through a detailed process of investigating that case and was, in the view of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, entirely justified in the dismissal action it took. That is a judgment that I certainly think was correct, but, in any event, is one with which this court will not interfere.
11. Mr Animadu made further claims for monies he said were owing to him by his employer. Those were all looked at in what I must say was exemplary detail by the Employment Tribunal, and all his claims were rejected. There is no basis for pursuing this matter further.
12. I do not grant permission.
Order: Application refused