Appeal No.	 EAT/1274/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 31 January 2002

Before
MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC
MR P DAWSON OBE
MR B V FITZGERALD MBE

MR S T ASPRILLA	APPELLANT

C S GROUP LTD	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR D OLUFEKO
(Solicitor)
Messrs Liberty Solicitors
85 Kingsland Road
Shoreditch
London E2 8AG	

MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC

1	This is a Preliminary Hearing in an appeal from the Employment Tribunal at London Central.  In Extended Reasons dated 13 September 2001 it dismissed the Appellant’s complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages.  It did so in the absence of the Appellant.

2	We propose to give leave for this appeal to be heard at a hearing at which the Respondents will be represented.  We should make clear our reasoning.

3	The basis as it appears from paragraphs 15-17 of the reasoning of the Employment Tribunal is that the Appellant did not succeed because he could not show on the available material that he was a party to any contract at all with the Respondent.  The Respondent denied ever employing the Appellant.  But they did accept that they employed someone by the name of Mr Almeidia.  

4	The decision does not refer in terms to the fact that part of the material which would have been before the Employment Tribunal must have been the Notice of Appearance.  That Notice of Appearance responding to the Originating Application of the Appellant says this:

“The C. S. Group supervisors and managers attending the previous hearings recognise the applicant as a cleaner who worked for us at a Cleaning contract at 100 New Bridge Street as the day operative.  All of the Craft representatives have supplied written statements stating that the cleaner was known to them as Mr Fernando Almeidia …”

5	It is, we think, arguable that if that appeared on what might be described as the pleadings, that it was capable of being an answer to the evidential problem upon which the Appellant’s case foundered.  Whether it did so or not depends upon a proper assessment of that material.  It depends upon the answer to the question whether it ought to have been taken into account by the Employment Tribunal and it raises the rather broader question of the status of an apparent admission, if that is what it was, as between the Originating Application and the Respondent’s notice before a Tribunal.  

4	We think it gives rise at least to the arguable ground that the Employment Tribunal could not properly have come to the conclusion it did.  We do not, of course, come to any conclusion ourselves.  The hearing will take no more than half a day.  Skeleton arguments together with copies of any cases to be relied upon must be provided no less than seven days prior to the hearing.  It is Category B for listing purposes.