Appeal No. EAT/633/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 9 October 1996

Before
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SMITH
MR A C BLYGHTON
MISS C HOLROYD

MRS P HAMMOND t/a TRACY'S HAIR FASHIONS	APPELLANT

MRS E RANDELL	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT	

	MRS JUSTICE SMITH:   This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal from the decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Southampton, whose decision was promulgated on 19th March 1993 with summary reasons only. The Industrial Tribunal ordered the appellant, the former owner of a hair salon, to pay to her former employee, Mrs Randell, £753 wages under a claim under the Wages Act 1986 and £717 as compensation for unfair dismissal.

	Mrs Randell worked as a hairdresser for the appellant from 1988 until she was dismissed in June 1995. Towards the end of that employment she worked only part-time as she had a young child. By 1995 the appellant had gone to live in Spain and the business was not thriving. She therefore decided to let the premises to a woman named Elaine Stewart who also worked in the business. Mrs Stewart was to pay rent and to take over the remaining custom and goodwill. Having arranged that, the appellant sent Mrs Randell a letter effectively dismissing her. The Industrial Tribunal found that there had been a transfer of undertaking, that there was no redundancy, and that the dismissal was unfair. It was agreed that Mrs Randell was entitled to receive pay in lieu of notice, some arrears of holiday pay, and some sick pay; but there was a dispute about the rate at which she was entitled to be paid. The Industrial Tribunal heard evidence and found the weekly rate to be £81 gross; the sick pay was not disputed. The order under the Wages Act was declared to be subject to deduction for tax and National Insurance if appropriate. In assessing compensation for unfair dismissal, the Industrial Tribunal examined Mrs Randell’s earnings as a self-employed hairdresser after her dismissal, and concluded that she was suffering no continuing loss. They awarded only a basic award based on the week’s pay as found and £150 for loss of statutory rights.

	In this appeal Mrs Hammond, who has not attended today, seeks to complain that she did not advance her case as well as she could have done at the hearing. She says in the Notice of Appeal that she had returned from Spain only the day before the hearing, and had not had time fully to digest the papers which she found waiting for her. Also she was unrepresented. She now wishes to put in evidence to show that Mrs Randell was not earning as much as the tribunal found.

	This Employment Appeal Tribunal has a jurisdiction limited by statute. We are allowed only to interfere in the decision of an Industrial Tribunal if it appears that the tribunal has made an error of law. We have no power to re-open a case simply because a party feels aggrieved with the findings of fact, particularly when it can be seen that they had not put their case as well as they would have wished. 

	This Notice of Appeal does not raise any point of law, and it must therefore be dismissed at this preliminary stage.