Appeal No.	 EAT/702/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On  1 October 1998

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H J BYRT QC
MR L D COWAN
MS D WARWICK

MRS J SHARP	APPELLANT

HERMITAGE DAWSON	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR MORTON
(of Counsel)
ELAAS	

	JUDGE JOHN BYRT QC:		This is a preliminary hearing in relation to an appeal against a decision promulgated on 15 April 1998, of an Employment Tribunal Chairman sitting alone in London South.  By her decision, she held that Mrs Sharp, the employee, had been dismissed from her job on 24 March 1997.  Therefore her claim that there had been unauthorised deductions from her wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1976, raised a question of the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal.  Such an application has to be made within three months of the date of the last payment from which the deduction had been made or within such further extended time as the Chairman considered reasonable.  On the facts of this case she decided that the Applicant was well out of time, and accordingly she decided the Tribunal had no jurisdiction.

	The facts of the case are short.  Mrs Sharp was employed by the Respondents as a secretary, in January 1997.  She fell ill with the result was that on the 11 February she was visited by her employer, Mr Hermitage.  Whilst she was in a state of shock or confusion with regard to her physical condition, a discussion took place in which it was her firm recollection that the employer was solicitous, and was wondering how he could make arrangements for her to continue to work for him when she recovered her health.  Mr Hermitage on the other hand, was firmly of the view that it was agreed on that date that her contract would come to an end.

	When the matter came before the Employment Tribunal, the Chairman without hesitation accepted Mrs Sharp’s version of the facts, but came to the conclusion that the contract was eventually terminated when a letter dated 24 March and written by Mr Hermitage to Mrs Sharp, was sent to her.  All the conclusions she comes to in relation to the remainder of Mrs Sharp ‘s application  turn upon that fact.  We are most grateful to Mr Morton, who, under the ELAAS scheme has represented Mrs Sharp today.  He has raised a question mark as to whether Mr Hermitage’s letter dated 24 March amounts to a termination of the contract.  If that letter is not a letter of termination, he submitted all sorts of possibilities flow.  In particular he submits that Mrs Sharp’s contract has not been terminated at all, even to this present time.  That affects her eligibility for Statutory Sick Pay and so on.  We are not certain we go all the way with Mr Morton on that submission.

	However, the validity of Mrs Sharp’s appeal in this matter turns on this question whether the contract has been terminated, and if so, at what date.  We think that the submissions made by Mr Morton raises an arguable point of law here and that this matter should go forward to a full hearing of this Tribunal, and that is our decision.