[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Williams v. Lomas & Anor [2001] UKEAT 0972_01_2910 (29 October 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0972_01_2910.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 0972_01_2910, [2001] UKEAT 972_1_2910

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR D GREENE (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE J R REID QC

1. This is a Preliminary Hearing of an appeal by Mr D P Williams against a decision of the Employment Tribunal held at Shrewsbury on 4 June 2001. The Respondents were Messrs Lomas & Ryder. Mr Williams was employed by Messrs Lomas & Ryder who carried on business under the name of South Cheshire Floor Fixing. He was wrongfully and unfairly dismissed. The Tribunal made an award which totalled £3,732 exactly. Mr Williams is dissatisfied with the amount of that award.
2. It seems to us that this matter ought to go to a Full Hearing. We shall grant leave to Mr Williams to substitute fresh grounds of appeal. The two matters which have caused us particular concern are, first, the comparatively minor one that no award was made in respect of loss of statutory rights. One would have expected a conventional figure of £150 or £200 or something of that sort. That is nowhere mentioned by the Chairman, who sat alone, in his decision. It seems to us that it is arguable that as a matter of law he was in error in not making such an award.
3. Secondly, it seems to us there are grounds for appeal arising out of the fact that the Chairman operated on the basis that Mr Williams' net pay was £170 per week. The reason that he did that is fairly clear to see because in paragraph 8 of the ET1 the CAB, which filled in the form for Mr Williams, filled it in thus:

"Basic wage or salary £300 per week

Average take home pay £170 per week

Other bonuses or benefits blank"

However that does not stand alone because the ET1 was amended by an order of the Chairman on 10 January by the addition of a letter with some documents attached to it in which Mr Williams applied to add to his application. One of the documents which was added to it was a P45 provided by the Respondents showing his date of termination as 28 November and showing total pay to date in the year to that date as being £17,083.57 with tax to date of £1,885.61. That equates to a gross pay of somewhere about £488 per week. It may be that a substantial amount of that was overtime. It also shows (I am reminded) a tax deduction amounting to about £54 per week. There were therefore inconsistencies within the ET1 itself.

4. It may be that the £170 per week was the correct contractual basic figure but there must be at least an argument for saying that the compensatory award which the Chairman calculated at 15 weeks at £170 per week less £520 for casual work for the Post Office and other firms and the £510 which was paid in lieu of notice, should have been something very much more substantial; possibly as much as 15 times £480 odd, or perhaps £440 odd net of tax. The difficulty that the Chairman undoubtedly had was that Mr Williams was not professionally represented. He was represented by his partner and it appears that there was a good deal less clarity than was desirable in the way in which the case progressed.
5. It does seem to us that there is an arguable case for saying that, both in relation to loss of statutory benefits and in relation to the weekly figure by reference to which compensation should have been calculated, there is an arguable case for saying that the Tribunal's award was substantially too low. In those circumstances it seems appropriate to direct that the matter should go to a Full Hearing. We must make it clear, as Mr Greene no doubt already has and will again, he having represented Mr Williams under the ELAAS scheme, for which we are very grateful, the fact that we allow a matter to go to a Full Hearing does not by any manner of means guarantee success when the Full Hearing comes along. All it means is that the Tribunal has taken the view that it is a proper case to be heard with both sides represented.