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

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Tilly v Liverpool City Council [2001] UKEAT 1331_97_2604 (26 April 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1331_97_2604.html
Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 1331_97_2604

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

BAILII case number: [2001] UKEAT 1331_97_2604
Appeal No. EAT/1331/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 26 April 2001

Before

HER HONOUR JUDGE A WAKEFIELD

MR J R CROSBY

SIR GAVIN LAIRD CBE


MS H TILLY APPELLANT

LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

© Copyright 2001

    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE OR
    REPRESENTATION
    BY OR ON BEHALF OF
    THE APPELLANT
       


     

    HER HONOUR JUDGE A WAKEFIELD

  1. This is an ex parte Preliminary Hearing to determine whether the appeal of Ms Tilley against the decision of an Employment Tribunal at Liverpool sitting on 18 July 1997 should proceed to a Full Hearing by reason of there being an arguable point of law. There has been no appearance by either party today and the decision is made on the basis of the documentation.

  2. The Appellant's claim for a remedy for unfair dismissal failed at a Preliminary Hearing at the Employment Tribunal by reason of a finding that she did not have the requisite two year period of continuous service. The Employment Tribunal found that her employment had commenced on 1 November 1994 and was determined on 11 October 1996. The Appellant had alleged that periods of employment with local authorities and others in the past were part of a period of continuous employment with the Respondent.

  3. Having read the documentation before the Employment Tribunal and its decision, we do not consider that there has been any mistake of law. In particular, the contract of employment issued to the Appellant by the Respondent expressly provides for the commencement date of the employment being 1 November 1994. We refer to that part of the contract of employment headed, "date of commencement of employment" and to paragraph 6 of that contract. The Employment Tribunal was therefore quite correct in finding that there was no express or implied alternative intention. The appeal is therefore dismissed and permission to appeal is refused.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1331_97_2604.html