BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Penketh Repair Services v Hilton [1997] UKEAT 451_97_0810 (8 October 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/451_97_0810.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 451_97_0810, [1997] UKEAT 451_97_810 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H J BYRT QC
MR P R A JACQUES CBE
MR T C THOMAS CBE
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellants | MR ALLINSON (Representative) |
JUDGE H J BYRT QC: This is an ex-parte hearing in relation to an appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting in Manchester. That decision held that the Applicant had been unfairly dismissed and awarded him £2,346 in all, including £348 for two weeks' net pay.
The Respondents have appealed on the issue of compensation only. The Notice of Appearance before the Industrial Tribunal did say that the employee had been given two weeks' notice during which he had been paid £348, but unfortunately the employer did not appear before the Industrial Tribunal to give evidence to that effect.
Doing the best that they could, on the evidence before them, namely just that of the employee himself, the Industrial Tribunal accepted that he had not been paid for those two weeks. As a result, they made a finding that he was entitled to the additional compensation of £348, being the wages for those two weeks.
Mr Allinson now appears, on behalf of the employers, and says he wishes to have a re-hearing on this particular point because he now has documentation he wishes to put before the Tribunal, evidencing the fact that a payment was made. It is a rule that once a tribunal of any sort comes to a finding of fact, that finding, subject to any questions of law, should be a final determination. In other words, litigants are not entitled to have "a second bite of the cherry" at some later stage. That rule applies in this Tribunal too.
We can only order a further hearing if there is identified a point of law which is arguable. We cannot receive into evidence additional documentation at this particular stage, nor is it permissible for us to re-open this question of fact, namely whether the employee had been paid the two weeks wages, when the Industrial Tribunal, on the evidence before it has come to a valid determination on the basis of the evidence it had.
In those circumstances, we do not think that this is a matter which should go forward to a full hearing and accordingly, we dismiss the appeal at this stage.
