[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Castley v Irwell Valley Housing Association [1996] UKEAT 995_96_0212 (2 December 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/995_96_0212.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 995_96_212, [1996] UKEAT 995_96_0212

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

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: We have before us an application by Ms Castley to appeal from the failure by an Industrial Tribunal to review in her favour a decision adverse to her which they made on 1st May 1996, a decision which was communicated to the parties on 6th June 1996.

It is necessary to look at the review decision in the context of the original decision. The appellant had been employed as a cleaning lady by the respondent. She had worked in more than one place, and she may well have had more than one contract of employment. She seems to have done perhaps rather more work (and possibly without being asked to do so by the respondent) before one day she failed to arrive for work. The respondent took it that by failing to arrive to work she wished to end her employment and acted accordingly. The Industrial Tribunal found that it should have given her a weeks' notice for each of the three contracts she had with it. In the circumstances she had made a claim for monies under the Wages Act which on the facts the tribunal found failed. The order which the tribunal made was that the claim under the Wages Act failed and awarded £66.57 was made for breach of contract because of their failure to the three times the wages should have been paid. That seems an impeccable decision.

The review was sought on the grounds that Ms Castley did not understand the tribunal's procedures properly and because of this she was unable to present her case properly. In giving reasons for dismissing the review, the learned Chairman said:

"It is, however, to be noted that although unrepresented at the hearing it would appear that the applicant had access to advice from a Solicitor, at Citizens Advice Bureau, a Benefits Rights worker and ACAS."

He went on to note:

"5. It is the practice of the Industrial Tribunal to allow a certain amount of leeway and assistance to an unrepresented party and I consider that such leeway and assistance were provided to this applicant."

He concluded:

"7. Accordingly, despite the applicant being unrepresented, I do not consider that the Tribunal was without any relevant evidence when it came to make the decision it did. In these circumstances I consider that it would not be in the interests of justice to review the Tribunal's Decision and in fact that the interests of justice require there to be finality in the circumstances of this case. The application for review is therefore refused."

We think that those reasons, as with the reasons on the original hearing, are clear and well set out and there is no reason for us whatever to interfere with that decision.

Accordingly, we will dismiss this appeal at this stage.