Appeal No.	EAT/1230/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 9 February 2000

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHARLES
MR D A C LAMBERT
MRS D M PALMER

MR M J O'MARA	APPELLANT

POSTWORTH LIMITED T/S NCS	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR A HOGARTH
(of Counsel)
Messrs O H Parsons & Partners
Sovereign House
212/224 Shaftesbury Avenue
London
WC2H 8PR	

	MR JUSTICE CHARLES:	The parties to this appeal which comes before us today by way of Preliminary Hearing are a Mr O’Mara and a Company called Postworth Limited.

1	The appeal is against a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Woburn Place (Stratford), the Extended Reasons for which were sent to the parties on 2 August 1999.

2	We have had the benefit of a professionally and clearly drafted Notice of Appeal and a summary of issues.  In our view this case raises points that are reasonably arguable.  We say now that on a preliminary look some of them seem more reasonably arguable than others.  In particular, we have in mind as a point that gives rise to points of law that are reasonably arguable is the relationship between Postworth and Tarmac and the knock-on effect that has as to the need for mutuality and control.

3	At this stage we think it better to say nothing else as to the merits of the case other than to indicate that we will permit all of the grounds raised in the Notice of Appeal to proceed to a full hearing.

4	A point raised before us is that there is another case called Greenaway which also involves Postworth Ltd and, as we understand it, a decision of an Employment Tribunal which is the opposite to the decision in this case.  What we propose to do so far as that is concerned is to take up the line suggested, by Mr O’Mara’s representatives, that they would write to Postworth to see whether a procedure for both appeals can be agreed between the parties to them.  

5	It seems to us at present that it would be sensible that the appeals, if not consolidated, be listed before and be dealt with by the same Tribunal.  What we will therefore do is direct that, if an agreed procedure for the two appeals is not reached and put into effect by the Registrar that both appeals be listed for a Directions Hearing before the same Judge of this Tribunal.  That Directions Hearing not to take place within the next 28 days but to take place as soon as practical thereafter.

6	We give this appeal Category B and a time estimate of one day, but indicate that we think if both appeals come on together they are unlikely to take longer than a day, given the overlap of points.