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 >> Tierney v Hodgson Bros (Builders) Ltd [1994] UKEAT 588_93_1401 (14 January 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/588_93_1401.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 588_93_1401 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR P M SMITH
MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MISS L CHUDLEIGH
(OF COUNSEL)
Messrs Balderston Warren
Station Place
Letchworth
Herts SG6 3AG
For the Respondents MR M DENCER
(OF COUNSEL)
Messrs Jameson & Hill
72-74 Fore Street
Hertford
Herts SG14 1BY
JUDGE LEVY: This is an appeal by James Kenneth Tierney against a unanimous decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Bedford on 1 June 1993 which held that Mr Tierney was not an employee of Hodgson Bros (Builders) Ltd within the meaning of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and dismissed his application. The reasons for what was an interlocutory decision were sent to the parties on 14 June 1993. Essentially the Grounds of Appeal are that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law, alternatively it was a perverse decision and they got the facts wrong.
We have carefully listened to the submissions made with persuasive force by Miss Chudleigh for the Applicant but having regard to the facts we are satisfied unanimously that the Tribunal was right. There were ample facts before it on which it could hold that the Appellant was not an employee of the Respondents. We do not think that the Tribunal misdirected itself in any way, nor do we think the decision of the Tribunal was perverse.
The high point of Miss Chudleigh's submission was her reference to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Young & Woods v West [1980] IRLR 201 where the well-known remarks of the then Master of the Rolls in Massey v Crown Life Insurance Co [1978] ICR 590, [1978] IRLR 31 were analysed and distinguished but at the end of the day we are quite sure that on the facts which were before them, it was open to the Tribunal to find that Mr Tierney was self-employed. The fact that they looked in contra distinction to him to how other employees were treated by the Company was of assistance to them in reaching their decision but it was not fundamental to that decision.
In the circumstances this appeal must be dismissed.
