BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Colourflow Ltd v. Smith [2002] UKEAT 1486_01_1906 (19 June 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1486_01_1906.html
Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1486_01_1906, [2002] UKEAT 1486_1_1906

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

BAILII case number: [2002] UKEAT 1486_01_1906
Appeal No. EAT/1486/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 19 June 2002

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

MR D J JENKINS MBE

MR R N STRAKER


COLOURFLOW LTD APPELLANT

MR R V SMITH RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

© Copyright 2002

    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant No appearance or
    representation by or
    on behalf of the Appellant
       


     

    JUDGE D M LEVY QC

  1. This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Colourflow Ltd from a hearing at an Employment Tribunal sitting in Reading on 21 September 2001.

  2. The issue before the Tribunal was whether certain sums of money had or had not been paid to the Applicant below, Mr R V Smith ("the Applicant") the Tribunal found that certain sums were due to him in the sum of £975.16.

  3. From that Decision a director of the company notified the Tribunal that the Company wished to appeal by letter dated 4 December 2001. A letter dated 13 May 2000 written on behalf of Mr David Duggins to the Tribunal states that Mr David Duggins and Simon Allport were appointed Joint Administrative Receivers of the Company on 26 February 2002 under fixed and floating charges and it was unlikely that there would be funds available for distribution to unsecured creditors, with no disrespect to the Tribunal, the administrators were not intended to take part in the proceedings.

  4. We are satisfied that on the material set out in the Decision, the Tribunal was entitled to come to reach the decision that £975.16 was so due to the Applicant. There was not a breach of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act, as alleged by the Director of the Company in the Notice of Appeal. Contracts can be written or oral and on the facts as found by the Tribunal, the Appellant was entitled to money which he ought to have been paid.

  5. In the circumstances, there is no arguable point for this appeal to go to a full hearing. Accordingly we dismiss it.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1486_01_1906.html