[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Jaggers Fashions Ltd v Hopkins & Anor [1994] UKEAT 571_93_2601 (26 January 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/571_93_2601.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 571_93_2601

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

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 571_93_2601

Appeal No. EAT/571/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 26th January 1994

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

MR J R CROSBY

MR J D DALY

---

JAGGERS FASHIONS LTD          APPELLANTS

(1) MRS P HOPKINS

(2) JANSWEAR LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants MR A GIPSON

(Lay Representative)

For the 1st Respondent MR P LEIGH-MORGAN

(Of Counsel)

G Cartwright & Co

9 Park Street

Chatteris

Cambridgeshire

PE16 6AB

No appearance by or on behalf 2nd Respondent of the 2nd Respondent


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC: This is an appeal by Jaggers Fashion Limited against a decision of the Bedford Industrial Tribunal held on the 14th May 1993, whereby they held that the Applicant, Mrs Patricia Hopkins, was unfairly dismissed and ordered that Jaggers Fashion Limited to pay to the Applicant the sum of £10,092.50. The decision was sent to the parties on the 9th June 1993. The Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on, or shortly after, 19th July 1993.

We have not found it necessary to trouble Mr Leigh-Morgan to answer the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant, by Mr Gipson. It was hoped that his wife would make those submissions but she was not able to do so. We adjourned for a time to make sure that Mr Gipson had the opportunity to marshall the arguments and consider the skeleton argument of the 1st Respondent, Mrs Hopkins, to see whether he could help us in the light of what was said in that argument.

Essentially, this is an appeal arising out of a transfer of undertakings when one Company went into liquidation and its employees, or a large share of them, seem to have gone to another Company.

The facts are set out in the decision and, if we may say so, the law is analysed immaculately. There are, in fact, as is pointed out in the skeleton argument of the 1st Respondent, a number of grounds of appeal which are to be distilled from the Notice of Appeal. They are that the Tribunal failed to give proper weight to certain parts of the evidence and that there was evidence which was not adduced at the original hearing which could have affected the outcome.

We do not think that any of these points raise an arguable ground of appeal. There is nothing in the judgment which, from reading and what we have heard, could sustain an argument that it was wrong in law or that there was no evidence to support its finding of fact or that those findings were perverse. In the circumstances we feel we must dismiss the appeal.

Essentially there was a transfer of the undertaking of Janswear to the Appellant and the Industrial Tribunal in its decision analyse both the facts and the law correctly. In the circumstances, as I say, we must dismiss this appeal.

I should add that no authorities were cited to us by Mr Gipson in support of his submissions. There will be no order for costs of this Appeal.