Appeal No.	 EAT/91/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 31 March 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE COLLINS CBE
MR D A C BLYGHTON
MR D CHADWICK

1)MR D SLADE & 2)MRS B SLADE	APPELLANTS

MRS A HOWSON	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised: 2nd Revision

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT.	

JUDGE COLLINS:

1.	This is a preliminary hearing of an appeal against the reserved decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Exeter on 24 June 1999.  By their decision they decided that the respondent was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to £1,375.00 redundancy pay and £682.50 in lieu of notice.  The same tribunal reviewed its decision on 18 October when they were pressed to reconsider their decision on the basis that the employment contract in question was tainted by illegality.  It ought to be recorded that the point had been raised and argued at the original hearing and the tribunal, as it admitted, had in error failed to mention it in its reserved extended reasons.  At the review hearing the tribunal reversed its award of £682.50 which no longer stands.  

2.	The point in the case is a simple one.  The Respondent was a waitress employed by the Appellants at their hotel from 19 June 1989 until 29 November 1998.  There was an argument at the tribunal as to whether she had been dismissed by reason of redundancy or had walked out of her own accord; the employers lost those arguments.  The sole point at the review and before this tribunal is whether or not the contract was tainted by illegality. The Appellants were in the habit of giving the respondent £10 per week petrol money and it was not declared for tax purposes.  Subsequently, the Inland Revenue swooped in and required the appellants to remedy the situation which they did and they have had the idea, advised by their accountant, that they could get out of paying Mr Howson her redundancy pay and money in lieu of notice by taking an illegality point.  

3.	The tribunal did not think much of that argument. In their reasons given on review they referred to a variety of authorities and took the view that this was a collateral matter to the contract of employment which was not tainted by illegality.  And in our judgment there is a clear distinction to be drawn between payments which are made as part of the remuneration and which are deliberately made by one party or received by the other with a view to avoiding tax and payments like those in the present case, which are payments for what, on the face of it, are genuine and admitted expenses which had not been declared.  It seems to us that there is a distinction and it is a matter for the tribunal to decide on which side of the line the case falls.  The tribunal found that this case fell on the side which did not taint the contract and in those circumstances, the appellants not being present today to renew their arguments, we take the view that there is no reasonably arguable point of law and dismiss the appeal.  

NOTE: We were informed after giving judgment that the Appellant Mrs Slater was at the Appeal Tribunal but not in the courtroom and had received advice as a result of which she gave notice in writing of a withdrawal of the appeal.