[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Robertson v. Lyndon Scaffolding Plc [2000] UKEAT 832_00_2510 (25 October 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/832_00_2510.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 832_00_2510, [2000] UKEAT 832__2510

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


JUDGE REID QC: This is an appeal by Mr Robertson against a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Cardiff on 23rd May 2000, the decision being dated 30th May 2000 and having been sent to the parties on 20th June 2000. By that decision the tribunal decided that:

"(a) The applicant had been unfairly dismissed, as agreed by the parties.

(b) By agreement between the parties, the respondent will pay to the applicant an amount of £1,100.00 gross in respect of the balance of the applicant's pay in lieu of notice and a gross sum of £1,100.00 for the balance of the applicant's redundancy payment entitlement.

(c) Whilst the applicant would otherwise be entitled to a basic award of £1,610.00, as the applicant will have received a total redundancy payment of £1,540.00, the Tribunal orders that the respondent do pay to the applicant a basic award of £70.00 and a compensatory award of £577.46 making a total award of £647.46 as compensation for unfair dismissal subject to reoupment of state benefits received by the applicant."

1. Unhappily, Mr Robertson the applicant and now the appellant, fell ill and was, to use the tribunal's expression, "placed on the sick" from the middle of October 1999. He was then in receipt of incapacity benefit from 9th November 1999 to 24th April 2000 when he obtained alternative employment.
2. The tribunal awarded the appellant compensation by way of two week's wages for the period from his dismissal until the middle of October but they then record as follows, in paragraph 4:

"… Counsel for the applicant accepted that there was no immediate loss of wages, other than those two weeks, and no future loss of earnings."

3. There was no medical evidence before the tribunal from which the tribunal could have reached a conclusion that the illness that Mr Robertson suffered, which was I understand of a depressive nature, was something that flowed from his dismissal.
4. Mr Robertson told us that he supplied medical evidence faxed to him by his doctor to his representative, but that she told him that this was a difficult avenue that she did not wish to explore. As a result, that evidence was not put before the tribunal.
5. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the tribunal in any sense erred in law in not making a finding on the basis of medical evidence since none was not submitted.
6. The remedy, if there is a remedy, and we of course are unable to express any view whatsoever one way or the other, is for Mr Robertson to seek advice to see whether there is possibility of his seeking redress from his former professional advisors. As it is, I am afraid, the Notice of Appeal, which is in these terms:

"The grounds upon which this appeal is brought are that the employment tribunal erred in law in that:-

No witnesses were called. No medical evidence was submitted."

does not disclose any arguable point of law. The appeal should not therefore go to a full hearing but should be dismissed at this stage.