[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Collett v R Miller & N Miller Ltd [1998] UKEAT 359_98_0105 (1 May 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/359_98_0105.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 359_98_105, [1998] UKEAT 359_98_0105

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR A SNELSON (ELAAS)


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: We have the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mr Collett against a unanimous decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Stratford on 14th November 1997. Then the tribunal dismissed his claim for payments from R Miller and N Miller Ltd on the grounds that he was not an employee at the appropriate time and, therefore, was not entitled to a redundancy payment or to claim wrongful dismissal.

In his original Notice of Appeal, Mr Collett drew attention to two other decision of an Industrial Tribunal, also sitting in Stratford, where the decision had gone the other way. In one of them, a decision in the case of a Mr Moran, the initial hearing was on 16th October 1997 when Mr Moran applied for relief and was held to be an employee; the second was on 19th December 1997, when a Mr Parish was held to be an employee and, ultimately, got relief. It is, as Mr Snelson, who has appeared before us today on the ELAAS scheme, a pity that the three matters were not consolidated, however, they were not.

One of the grounds of appeal in the original Notice of Appeal of Mr Collett was that the decision of the Industrial Tribunal was perverse in the light of the findings of the other two tribunals. In support of that submission, we have been shown the decision in the case of Mr Parish of 19th December 1997, which, we are told by Counsel, represents facts very similar to those which could have been held if full findings had been made in the case of Mr Collett.

That alone, in our judgment, makes the appeal arguable.

But in addition, Mr Collett has drawn out certain matters which were put in the original Notice of Appeal which suggest that insufficient findings of fact were made to justify this decision and certainly an arguable can go forward on this ground.

What we have asked Mr Snelson to do is to put in a fresh Notice of Appeal consolidating all the grounds which Mr Collett wishes to rely on and this case should go forward on that basis.

We should add that we have heard from the respondents they do not intend to be represented today because it is a company which is now in dissolution. That is as may be, but this is a matter which the full tribunal will no doubt consider in due course.

Given the short summary of facts provided in the extended reasons, a request has been made for the Chairman's Notes of Evidence. We think that they will be of help to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and, accordingly, we direct that the Chairman should be asked to supply them.