BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Mendik Industrial Co Ltd (UK) v Smith [1991] UKEAT 225_91_0309 (3 September 1991) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1991/225_91_0309.html Cite as: [1991] UKEAT 225_91_0309, [1991] UKEAT 225_91_309 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MR L D COWAN
MR J D DALY
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant
NO ATTENDANCE BY APPELLANT
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an Appeal by way of a Preliminary Hearing from a Decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Birmingham on 22nd April 1991 under the Chairmanship of Mr Delgado. There was a claim by the Applicant Mr Wilson-Smith alleging unfair dismissal and seeking compensation. The Respondents were the Mendik Industrial Company Limited (UK) who have appealed and in their Notice of Appeal take one point only namely the compensation was awarded in respect of the loss of the use of a Company car and the assessment was a rate of £40 a week.
The calculation of the compensation is set out in paragraph 17 of the Decision and after making the usual calculation in respect of the basic wage and the future earnings a total was reached of £13,496.00. The award of the loss of use of the Company car was £1,160.00, if one subtracts one figure from the other the calculation is still in excess of the maximum of £8,925.00 which was awarded, therefore, even if the point was well founded, which we find it is not, then it would have made no difference whatsoever to the award. It may be that the question was raised as a question of principle, if so, it is unfortunate that there is no attendance before us today, we cannot so regard it.
This is yet another case where the time of this Court and the work of the staff has been wasted on obviously unmeritorious points. It would be extremely useful to have the power to award Court costs against parties in these circumstances. Unfortunately we do not have the power so to do, it is another example.
This Appeal is dismissed.
