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

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Jones v Ahmed Tuck's Service Station [1998] UKEAT 676_98_0110 (1 October 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/676_98_0110.html
Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 676_98_0110, [1998] UKEAT 676_98_110

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


BAILII case number: [1998] UKEAT 676_98_0110
Appeal No. EAT/676/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 1 October 1998

Before

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SMITH

MRS T A MARSLAND

MRS R A VICKERS



MISS T JONES APPELLANT

MR K AHMED TUCK'S SERVICE STATION RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

© Copyright 1998


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant MR R STILES
    Sittingbourne Citizens Advice Bureau
    17a Station Street
    Sittingbourne
    Kent ME10 3DU
       


     

    MRS JUSTICE SMITH: This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Miss Tina Jones from the decision of a Chairman sitting alone at the Industrial Tribunal at Ashford on 11 February 1998.

    The Chairman ruled that the Appellant was not entitled to bring a claim for unfair dismissal and/or for the enforcement of various other statutory rights, because she had not completed a period of two years' employment with the Respondent, Mr Ahmed. However, in her Notice of Appeal, which is in the form of a letter, she makes the point that her Originating Application, which was also in the form of a letter with documents attached, claimed that she had been dismissed as the result of victimisation. The victimisation took the form of a dismissal because she had sought to assert her statutory rights. That being so, her case is that she is entitled to present a claim in respect of her dismissal, even though she had not completed two years' service. It seems to us that that is a good arguable point.

    We are concerned that Miss Jones, who was not represented at all before the Chairman, failed to demonstrate to the Chairman that that was the nature of her claim. He does not mention victimisation in his decision.

    Accordingly, we allow this case to proceed to a full hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. We grant leave to the Appellant to amend her Notice of Appeal and we hope that she will receive the help and advice that she needs, in order to draft a Notice of Appeal in proper form and also to present her case at the full hearing.

    Because we recognise that Miss Jones needs to seek advice, we allow 28 days for the amended Notice of Appeal to be filed. We shall set the case down for a one-hour hearing under Category C.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/676_98_0110.html