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 >> Walker & Anor (t/a Walker's School of Motoring) v. Mills [2001] UKEAT 561_01_1009 (10 September 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/561_01_1009.html
Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 561_1_1009, [2001] UKEAT 561_01_1009

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


BAILII case number: [2001] UKEAT 561_01_1009
Appeal No. EAT/561/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 10 September 2001

Before

MR RECORDER UNDERHILL QC

PROFESSOR P D WICKENS OBE

MR G H WRIGHT MBE



MR M WALKER AND MRS R WALKER T/A
WALKER'S SCHOOL OF MOTORING
(SUBSTITUTED AS RESPONDENTS)
APPELLANT

MRS J MILLS RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

© Copyright 2001


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant Mr Underwood
    Solicitor
    Appearing under the
    Employment Law Appeal
    Advice Scheme
       


     

    MR RECORDER UNDERHILL QC

  1. In our view this appeal should proceed as to liability. The Tribunal were no doubt within their rights to substitute the name of Mr and Mrs Walker for that of Mr Pearce, but since this only occurred at the hearing we consider it arguable that Mr and Mrs Walker cannot retrospectively be rendered liable for the non-service of a Respondent's Notice of Appearance. We do not say that the argument is straightforward. There may be an argument that, read as a whole, box 5 of the IT1 does indeed correctly identify the business, rather than Mr Pearce personally, as the Respondent. That, however, is not the basis on which the Tribunal approached the matter, and we are satisfied that the issues to which the appeal gives rise cannot sensibly be determined by us on a summary basis.
  2. So far as the appeal on compensation is concerned, neither Mrs Walker in her original Skeleton Argument nor Mr Underwood, who has helped her and us this morning under the ELAAS scheme, have been able to identify any point of law; and we dismiss the appeal so far as compensation is concerned.
  3. As for directions, it seems to us this will require one and a half hours for argument, Category C. No directions are sought as regards Chairman's Notes or Notes of Evidence, and we cannot for ourselves see that any is necessary. In the event, we hope unlikely, that the Respondent to the appeal takes a different view, an application will have to be made to this Tribunal. Standard directions are that Skeleton Arguments have to be exchanged fourteen days before the hearing.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/561_01_1009.html