[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Capodici v. Thames and Chiltern Trust Ltd [2000] UKEAT 606_00_1711 (17 November 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/606_00_1711.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 606__1711, [2000] UKEAT 606_00_1711

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	The Appellant in person


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC

1. We have before us today the hearing ex-parte of the appeal by Mr Capodici, ("the Appellant") against a decision made by the London South Employment Tribunal sitting on 10 March 2000. The Appellant was in person that day and on that day, the question before the Tribunal was whether the Appellant was in the employment of Thames and Chiltern Trust Ltd ("the Respondent"), and if he was, whether the sums of money paid to him when his employment ended were inadequate.
2. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that his claim failed. The Tribunal went into the exercise of attempting to decide whether or not he was an employee and came to the decision that he was not. Having done that, in case they were wrong on that, they went on to consider whether the amount of payment given to him when he left was right or wrong.
3. The judgment was sent to the parties on 22 March 2000. From it the Appellant appealed by Notice dated 2 May; further and better particulars of the Grounds of Appeal were also lodged.
4. The Notice of Appeal addresses the amount of money which the Appellant claims he should have received in lieu of notice; however the Appeal could not succeed on that point unless or until the judgment as to the Appellant being an employee had been overturned. That apparently had not been appreciated by Mr Capodici. He has shown us today a document which we will append to this document "A" which is at variance in one respect to the document which is with our bundle at page 20. Each is headed 'Bank List - Statement of Terms of Contract/s for services. There is a significant difference between the two documents. On the one which was handed to us today, (which Mr Capodici told us was the original one given to him), between 'Remuneration' and 'Hours of Work', there is typescript. By contrast on the document at page 20, there is between 'Remuneration' and 'Hours of Work' a separate heading of 'Holidays'. We do not know whether there is any legal significance arising from the differences; it is something upon which the Appellant may want to place reliance. Although the Appellant had today the assistance of a representative under the ELAAS scheme, when he addressed us that representative did not appear to have appreciated that the initial issue in the appeal must be whether or not the appellant was an employee. We are reluctant to give any appellant two bites at the cherry but when he appears in person, we think it only right that an appellant should have the opportunity to see if he can put his house in order before an ex-parte hearing results in a final ruling. If this happens, proper consideration can be given as to whether or not there is a point to go forward to a full hearing.
5. In the circumstances, we think the appropriate course for us to take, is to recommend to the Appellant he should seek legal advice on his appeal as quickly as he can. We hope legal aid may be available for this purpose but we do no more than say that. This preliminary appeal should be adjourned to come on for further hearing in the new year. We would ask the Appellant to ensure that if he wishes to amend his Notice of Appeal to challenge the finding as to him being an employee, a proposed Amended Notice of Appeal is lodged within 28 days of today. If there is anything which he wishes to put before the Tribunal by way of evidence, that should be put forward by way of an affidavit lodged with an Amended Notice of Appeal. We hope he will be able to take legal advice, if he wishes this appeal to go forward. We will adjourn it therefore for the first open day in the new year, provided a Notice of Appeal is lodged within 28 days of today. If no such Notice is lodged, at the end of 28 days the appeal will be dismissed.