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!



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

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Aspect Telecommunications Ltd v. Grewal [1999] UKEAT 787_99_2510 (25 October 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/787_99_2510.html
Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 787_99_2510

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


BAILII case number: [1999] UKEAT 787_99_2510
Appeal No. EAT/787/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 25 October 1999

Before

THE HONOURABLE LORD JOHNSTON

MISS C HOLROYD

MR G H WRIGHT MBE



ASPECT TELECOMMUNICATIONS LIMITED APPELLANT

MR J S GREWAL RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING – EX PARTE

© Copyright 1999


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellants MR N DE SILVA
    (of Counsel)
    Instructed by:
    Ms S Fern
    Messrs Macfarlanes
    Solicitors
    10 Norwich Street
    London
    EC4A 1BD
       


     

    LORD JOHNSTON: This is an appeal at the instance of the employer/appellant against the finding of the Employment Tribunal that it had jurisdiction to hear an application by the employee/respondent to it claiming unfair dismissal upon the basis that he had the necessary qualifying two year period of employment. In order, however, to achieve that position the tribunal under the background of s.218 of the 1996 Act relating to continuous employment, had to hold that there had been a transfer of a relevant undertaking involving the respondent in the term of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. The tribunal did so hold.

  1. In the preliminary hearing, Mr De Silva, who appeared the appellants, attacked the decision of the tribunal essentially on four grounds:
  2. (1) the failure of the tribunal to consider whether the respondent was an employee of the former employer before 28th February 1998 (to call it that for the sake of the argument);
    (2) the tribunal's finding that the respondent, as an individual, constituted an undertaking was unsound in law;
    (3) the tribunal's finding that the work before and after his recruitment was similar was contrary to the evidence and could be categorised as perverse;
    (4) the tribunal's finding that there was, in any event, a transfer against the background of the relevant cases to this issue, so far as they can be rationalised.
  3. For the purposes of a preliminary hearing we need to go no further that to consider and take the view that this case raises an important point on a number of issues which certainly justifies the matter going to a full hearing on the legal questions that Mr De Silva has enunciated and we shall so order.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/787_99_2510.html