[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Davenne v Cardiff Institute Of Higher Education [1994] UKEAT 214_93_2501 (25 January 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/214_93_2501.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 214_93_2501

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

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 214_93_2501

Appeal No. EAT/214/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 25 January 1994

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

MRS M L BOYLE

MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP

---

MR L P DAVENNE          APPELLANT

CARDIFF INSTITUTE OF HIGHER EDUCATION          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant IN PERSON


 


JUDGE LEVY: There was an Industrial Tribunal held at Cardiff which was scheduled to last for 5 days commencing 12 October 1992. One of the Applicants before the Tribunal was Mr Leon Pierre Davenne, the Respondent to the case with the South Glamorgan County Council. After 3 days' of hearing the Originating Applications by each of the Applicants were withdrawn by their representative. Following that withdrawal there was an application for costs by the South Glamorgan County Council which the Chairman refused. The date of his decision was on 14 October and the decision was sent to the parties on 20 October. The decision reads:

"The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that (1) the originating applications herein are dismissed on withdrawal by the applicants; (2) the respondents' application for costs is refused."

and dealing with the questions of costs in their Reasons we read:

"The applicants on the third day of a hearing scheduled for five days decided to withdraw their applications."

Mr Davenne appealed against that finding and the matter came before the President on a preliminary matter on documentation only and on 17 February the President, then Mr Justice Wood, sitting with two colleagues, made this order:

"UPON THE PRESIDENT having directed that this appeal should be decided on documentation already filed

AND UPON the Employment Appeal Tribunal having read the relevant documentation and in particular

(a) the Notice of Appeal

(b) the Full Reasons of the Industrial Tribunal

(c) all further written representations from the Appellant

AND UPON the Employment Appeal Tribunal having decided that there is no arguable point of law disclosed therein

ORDERED

This appeal is dismissed

LEAVE TO APPLY within 28 days of the date of this order for an oral hearing: such application must be in writing and must reach the office of the Employment Appeal Tribunal not later than 28 days from the date of this order."

Mr Davenne duly wrote to the EAT within the time limit. There is now this further hearing. Like Mr Justice Wood and his colleagues, we have read all the papers. We have also had the benefit of hearing from Mr Davenne in person. Mr Davenne's complaints are that he was put under pressure by his representative to withdraw his complaint, that he was ill at the time and the Tribunal did not go into the rights and wrongs of his application.

As to the first, this is not something we can go into on the evidence which is presently before us. We have no reason from what we have seen, to believe that his representative withdrew his application without his authority. As to the second, if he was ill there was no suggestion that there was a medical certificate. We asked him about this but there was no suggestion that he was medically unfit to attend the Tribunal. As to the matter not being fully investigated by the Tribunal, it did hear evidence for 3 days before it was withdrawn. It having thus been withdrawn it is not very surprising there was neither any further full investigation nor was there a decision on the merits of the case.

Like the earlier Appeals' Tribunal which had read the documentation, we feel that there is no arguable point of law disclosed in the appeal and accordingly we dismiss it.