[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Coax Connectors Ltd v. Templeton [2002] UKEAT 1133_01_2204 (22 April 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1133_01_2204.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1133_01_2204, [2002] UKEAT 1133_1_2204

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

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


JUDGE A WAKEFIELD:

1. This is an ex-parte preliminary hearing of an appeal by Coax Connectors Ltd against the decision of a Nottingham Employment Tribunal, promulgated with extended reasons on 27 July 2001, by which it was decided that the Applicant, who is the present Respondent and will be referred to as such hereafter, was entitled to recover from the Appellant the sum of £2,594.06 for arrears of pay (which was categorised as unlawful deductions from wages) together with £665 in respect of holiday pay.
2. As we understand the grounds of appeal, they are as follows: firstly that the Employment Tribunal were wrong in law to allow the Respondent to pursue a claim for holiday pay since no such claim was included in the originating application; secondly that the Employment Tribunal were wrong to say that it had no jurisdiction, under the 1994 Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order, to consider a proposed counter claim by the Appellant as regards an alleged breach of the contract of employment by the Respondent; thirdly, that the Employment Tribunal were wrong to conclude, by reference to the Appellants having consulted solicitors by March 2001, that it was reasonably practicable for a breach of contract-claim to have been presented by the Appellant within the time allowed by the 1994 order and that time for presentation of such a claim should therefore not be extended and fourthly, that the Chairman of the Employment Tribunal was biased against the Appellant in the manner in which he conducted the hearing.
3. We have considered these written submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellant by Mr J Robinson, who is a director of the Appellant and who swore an affidavit dated 18 September 2001. We have also considered the responses of the Chairman and the members of the Employment Tribunal as regards the allegation of bias. We are entirely satisfied that as regards that allegation, (the fourth ground of appeal) there is no arguable case. However, as regards to the other three grounds of appeal, we do consider that these should go forward to a full hearing. So far as the question of holiday pay is concerned we consider that there ought to be consideration of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and that the schedule of loss which was put forward by the Respondent and available to the Employment Tribunal should be made available to this Appeal Tribunal at the full hearing. We also require on the question of holiday pay that the Chairman's notes of evidence on that issue only should be provided, so that the basis of the calculation of holiday pay can be made clear.
4. As regards the counter claim, the ground of appeal referred to will be argued at the full hearing and the question of jurisdiction and th e correct interpretation of the Order will then be considered.
5. We put the matter in category C and allow a time estimate of 2 hours. Skeleton arguments to be provided not later than 14 days in advance of the hearing.