[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Paul v Vascroft Contractors Ltd [1995] UKEAT 650_95_2410 (24 October 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/650_95_2410.html Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 650_95_2410

[New search] [Help]

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 650_95_2410

Appeal No. EAT/650/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 24th October 1995

THE HONOURABLE MR MAURICE KAY

MR T C THOMAS CBE

MRS P TURNER OBE

---

MR E PAUL          APPELLANT

VASCROFT CONTRACTORS LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR S SIMBLET

(of Counsel)

Mr M O'Donoghue

Paddington Law Centre

439 Harrow Road

London W10 4RE


 


MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: When Mr Paul's case came before the London (North) Industrial Tribunal, he succeeded in persuading them that he had been an employee of the respondents. However, the Industrial Tribunal proceeded to find that he had not been dismissed by them.

He appeals, not of course against the finding that he was an employee, but against the finding that he was not dismissed.

We have had regard to his grounds of appeal and to the submissions made by Mr Simblet on his behalf. Whilst it appears to us that there are some difficulties about this case, we think that it would be wrong to close the door on the appeal at this stage. Therefore we propose to allow it to proceed to a full hearing.

One of the matters that has occurred to us is that the Industrial Tribunal were impressed and it seems only impressed, with the evidence of Mr Manku. They refer to the appellant's conversation with Mr Manku on 28th April 1993 in two places, paragraph 10 and paragraph 14 of the decision. In paragraph 10 the Tribunal state that Mr Manku informed the appellant that there was no more work for him to do at the Vauxhall site, and he could go back to head office "to see whether more work was available."

In paragraph 14 the Tribunal say that Mr Manku informed the appellant to contract head office "to find alternative employment."

Having heard Mr Simblet's submissions, it may be (we put it no higher) that whatever words were used and found to have been used on that occasion, may have some significance in relation to the point of law which he seeks to raise.

Accordingly, for that and other reasons we consider that this is a case where the Chairman's Notes of Evidence ought to be bespoken.

Our order will therefore be that the matter proceeds to a full hearing, that there be a request for the Chairman's Notes of Evidence, and that skeleton arguments be lodged with the Tribunal at least fourteen days before the hearing.