Appeal No.	 EAT/694/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 8 November 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE A WILKIE QC
MS J DRAKE
MISS A MACKIE OBE

MR J MADDEN CARPENTRY	APPELLANT

MR H WILLIAMS	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING 

Revised

	APPEARANCES

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

JUDGE A WILKIE QC

1	This is an appeal by M J Madden Carpentry against a decision of an Employment Tribunal Chairman on Monday 17 April of this year to the effect that the Applicant, Mr Williams, was entitled to a payment in lieu of notice in the sum of £281.70.  

2	In the Extended Reasons the issue was dealt with by the Chairman as an issue of pure fact, namely whether or not Mr Williams had been paid monies for the week ending 22 October in respect of notice pay, having been dismissed, so Mr Williams alleged, on that date.  

3	The Respondent’s case as evidence by wages records is that the Applicant was in fact paid a week in hand on 29 October having, on their account, been given notice of dismissal on 15 October, as evidenced by a letter produced of that date, Mr Williams then working his notice period until 22 October.  Mr Williams gave sworn evidence to the effect that he had never received any such letter dated 15 October.  He agreed that his last day at work was 22 October, but his evidence was that he was dismissed on that date without any notice.  Accordingly, the sum that he was paid on 29 October represented the week in hand, and he was therefore still due and owing one week in lieu of notice.  The Chairman of the Tribunal accepted the Applicant’s evidence and rejected the account given by the Respondent and on that basis reached the conclusion which is appealed from.  

4	The Notice of Appeal takes three points.  The first is an assertion that Mr Williams was given one week’s notice in writing on 15 October and enclosed with the Notice of Appeal is a letter dated 15 October headed  “M J & I Madden Joinery Contractors” which, on the face of it, does give him one week’s notice to expire on 22 October.  That, however, raises no arguable point of law.  The issue is one of fact alone.  The Chairman of the Tribunal, having taken evidence, was fully entitled to accept the evidence of Mr Williams and therefore, in our judgment, there is no arguable case to be subject to a full appeal hearing.  

5	The second and third points raised appear to take a point that the true Respondent to this application should have been not “M J Madden Carpentry”, as Mr Williams had brought proceedings against, but a different entity called “M J & I Madden Joinery Contractors”.  It is said that, as of 17 April, M J & I Madden went into a voluntary arrangement, all affairs being carried out with BDO Stoy Hayward in Sheffield.  

6	The application was made against M J Madden Carpentry, which we take to be M J Madden trading as M J Madden Carpentry.  The Notice of Appearance gives the name of the Respondent as Martin J Madden, in other words, the person who was trading as M J Madden Carpentry.  There is nothing in the Notice of Appearance which raises any question whether the identity of the Respondent was some other entity, namely M J & I Madden Contracting.  The only document which contains that nomenclature is the letter of 15 October which the Chairman concluded as a matter of fact, having heard the evidence, was never received by Mr Williams.  

7	It seems to us that there is simply no arguable point raised in this appeal, as the point which appears to be raised is one which was not raised before the Tribunal and is wholly inconsistent with the pleaded case of Mr Madden, as set out in the Notice of Appearance.  We have no hesitation in concluding that this is not an appeal which, on any of the three grounds relied on, has any reasonable prospect of success.  We do not order that it go to a full hearing and we dismiss it at this stage.