[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Allen v. Cambridge School of English [1999] UKEAT 230_99_1005 (10 May 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/230_99_1005.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 230_99_1005

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


JUDGE HAROLD WILSON: The appellant was employed by the respondent School from 1995 until the end of 1997. From about November 1997, the appellant was not paid by the Authorities which ran the respondent School and she did not return to teach at the beginning of the new school year in 1998.

The appellant had received notification on behalf of the School on 19th December 1997 that the School had become insolvent. On 7th January 1998, she wrote to the insolvency company requesting payments of monies outstanding. The insolvency company replied on 20th January 1998, sending her a form to enable her to make her claim for payment to the National Insurance Fund.

The appellant received no reply until 6th May 1998 from the Fund, although she had despatched her claim promptly on 2nd February 1998.

Subsequently, the appellant brought an application for unauthorised deduction of wages, breach of contract, and a redundancy payment to an Employment Tribunal which found, on 2nd December 1998, that her complaints had not been presented within the required time limit, that she had not satisfied the tribunal that it was not reasonably practicable for her to do so, and that accordingly there was no jurisdiction for the tribunal to consider her complaints. Accordingly her applications were dismissed and this is the preliminary hearing to consider whether her appeal against that decision should go forward to a full hearing.

The appellant submits that the terms of the letter which she received from the Department of Trade and Industry (Redundancy Payments Office), dated 6th May 1998, were misleading. In particular she points to the penultimate paragraph of the letter which instructed her to present her complaint for anything apart from redundancy money "within 3 months of the date you receive this letter." She did in fact do this.

Similarly, with regard to a claim for a redundancy payment, the appellant submits that the wording of the letter was again misleading. The relevant paragraph stated:

"If you have applied in writing to your employer for a redundancy payment within 6 months of the "relevant date" as defined in sections 145 or 153 Employment Rights Act 1996, you may apply to an Industrial Tribunal at any time. ..."

The appellant submits that she had already written to the employer and relies on her letter of 7th January 1998. That letter is not referred to in the extended reasons of the Employment Tribunal.

In our unanimous view, the appellant should have the opportunity to present her appeal to a full hearing and to support it with a statement set out in chronological date order to amplify the submissions she has made to us at the preliminary hearing.

The question for the tribunal at the full hearing is whether the Employment Tribunal should have had regard to the ambiguity of the Department of Trade and Industry's letter of 6th May and to the appellant's actions before that date during January and February when considering whether it was reasonable to extend the time limits for her applications.

The appeal should be listed as Category C and a time estimate of two hours marked upon it.