Appeal No. EAT/984/93
	I N T E R N A L 

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 22 March 1994

	Before

	HIS HONOUR JUDGE J PEPPITT QC

	MRS M L BOYLE

	MR J A SCOULLER

MISS R HERON	APPELLANT

H H GROUP LTD	RESPONDENTS

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

	PRELIMINARY HEARING 

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	IN PERSON

	

	JUDGE PEPPITT QC:  This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal against a decision of the London South Industrial Tribunal made on 26 May 1993.  In those proceedings the Appellant, Miss Heron, had claimed against H H Group Ltd an entitlement to a redundancy payment and compensation for unfair dismissal.  The Industrial Tribunal dismissed the claim on the basis that Miss Heron had never been employed by H H Group Ltd but that at all material times her employers were Hidden Hotels Ltd.

	The background to the claim is this.  On 19 April 1990 Miss Heron entered into the employment of Hidden Hotels Ltd initially as an assistant in the marketing department, but subsequently on promotion to the post of assistant marketing manager.  In February 1992, Hidden Hotels Ltd encountered financial difficulties and ceased to trade.  At the end of that month Miss Heron was instructed to cease using Hidden Hotels Ltd notepaper in connection with her work but was instructed instead to use notepaper bearing the name of H H Group Ltd.  H H Group Ltd at an earlier stage, following a re-organisation, had become the parent company of Hidden Hotels Ltd.  Miss Heron was also provided with a set of business cards in the name of H H Group Ltd which she was instructed to use in connection with her work.  This she did and continued in her extended, if not new role, until Hidden Hotels Ltd was put into receivership in July 1992 at which time she and some, but not all, the employees of Hidden Hotels Ltd were given redundancy notices.

	In those circumstances Miss Heron, not unreasonably, came to the conclusion that following the cessation of trading by Hidden Hotels Ltd in February 1992, she became employed by the group H H Group Ltd whose notepaper and business card she was using.  Indeed at some time after February 1992 she approached the management of H H Group Ltd and suggested that she should henceforth be regarded as being employed by that company.  However, no steps in this direction were taken and Miss Heron continued to receive her salary through Hidden Hotels Ltd, no doubt by dint of funds provided by one or more than one of the other companies in the group.

	The Tribunal found, in those circumstances, that Miss Heron continued to be employed by Hidden Hotels Ltd until she was made redundant in July 1992.  That finding is one which binds us unless there was no evidence to support it or the finding can properly be regarded as perverse in the sense that no Tribunal reasonably considering the evidence could have reached it.  In support of an argument that the Tribunal's decision was perverse in that sense Miss Heron refers us to the first sentence of paragraph 5 of the Tribunal's decision which reads:

		"At the end of February 1992 it was decided that, for cash flow reasons, H H Group Ltd had to cease trading."

That sentence, it seems to us, contains a manifest error because it was not H H Group Ltd which ceased trading in February 1992 but Hidden Hotels Ltd.  However, it seems to us that that error does not undermine the finding that until her dismissal on grounds of redundancy in July 1992, Miss Heron continued to be employed by Hidden Hotels Ltd.  There was clear evidence in support of that finding to be derived from the fact that between February 1992 and the date of her ultimate dismissal, she continued to receive her salary from that company and the dismissal which finally ensued on grounds of redundancy albeit on the notepaper of H H Group Ltd, was expressed to be given on behalf of Hidden Hotels Ltd.

	In those circumstances, sympathetic as we are to Miss Heron and grateful as we are that she put her case so succinctly and persuasively, we have come to the conclusion unanimously that we are bound by the finding of fact made by the Tribunal and accordingly this appeal must stand dismissed.