BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



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

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Christie, Manson & Woods v. Stancliffe [1999] UKEAT 469_99_0107 (1 July 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/469_99_0107.html
Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 469_99_0107, [1999] UKEAT 469_99_107

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


BAILII case number: [1999] UKEAT 469_99_0107
Appeal No. EAT/469/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 1 July 1999

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK

MR D A C LAMBERT

MRS J M MATTHIAS



CHRISTIE, MANSON & WOODS LIMITED APPELLANT

MR J STANCLIFFE RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING – EX PARTE

© Copyright 1999


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellants MR I GATT
    (of Counsel)
    Messrs Watson, Farley & Williams
    Solicitors
    15 Appold Street
    London
    EC2A 2HB
       


     

    JUDGE PETER CLARK:

  1. The question of law raised in this appeal is whether it was open to the appellant employer to rescind a consensual variation of the terms of an employment contract made with the respondent employee on the ground that, in breach of contract, the respondent was guilty of prior non-disclosure of a fact material to the variation. The London (South) Employment Tribunal found that it could not revert to the status quo ante, that is the terms of the contract prior to the variation; either the employer accepted the respondent's repudiatory breach and treated the contract as at an end in its entirety, or it accepted the breach, in which case, the contract continued as varied. The tribunal found the latter to be the case and upheld the respondent's complaint of unlawful deductions from his wages, being the difference between his original level of remuneration and that resulting from the variation.
  2. Having considered the submissions advanced by Mr Gatt we are satisfied that the appeal is arguable and should proceed to a full inter partes hearing.
  3. For that purpose we shall direct that the case be listed for one full day; Category B. There will be exchange of skeleton arguments between the parties not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing. Copies of those skeleton arguments to be lodged with the EAT at the same time.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/469_99_0107.html