Appeal No.	 EAT/881/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 27 October 1997

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
MISS A MACKIE OBE
MR N D WILLIS

JOSEPH LTD	APPELLANT

MR A HEATH	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR J SHAW
(Representative)	

	MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY:   This is a preliminary hearing of the appeal of Joseph Ltd against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal at London (North). The hearing was on 20th June 1997, and the decision was sent to the parties on 26th June 1997. It was a hearing concerned solely with the question of continuity of employment so as to establish whether or not Mr Heath was an eligible applicant under s.108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal held that he was not disqualified from the right not to be unfairly dismissed.

	The decision contains a consideration of Ingram v Foxon [1985] IRLR 5 and Murphy v A Birrell Ltd [1978] IRLR 458. It ultimately places some reliance on the Ingram case. We have to say that when we first considered the papers in this matter, no member of this appeal tribunal was able to identify an arguable point of law. However, in the course of his submissions, Mr Shaw has referred us to the recent decision of this appeal tribunal in Morris v Walsh Western UK Ltd, a decision given on 18th April 1997, prior to the hearing in the Industrial Tribunal in the present case. 

	It is apparent from a perusal of the judgment in the Morris case, which was given by His Honour Judge Peter Clark, that this tribunal expressed some doubt about Ingram v Foxon and expressed some reasoning which would have been of assistance to the appellant in the present case had it been before the Industrial Tribunal. We are not convinced that the reasoning in the case of Morris was necessarily correct, but it seems inappropriate for us to say any more about that at this stage. We are satisfied that it raises an arguable point of law, and that the appellant should be entitled to take this matter to a full hearing.