Appeal No. EAT/1431/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 12 April 2002

Before
MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC
MR J C SHRIGLEY
MR H SINGH

MR A M DONLON	APPELLANT

CITY OF WAKEFIELD M D C	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR C BOURNE 
(of Counsel)	

RECORDER LANGSTAFF:
1.	We propose to give permission for this appeal to be argued at a hearing at which the Respondent counsel may be represented.  We do so upon the basis that there is to say the least considerable doubt as to whether or not the employee was dismissed at any stage outside the three months prior to submitting his IT1.  

2.	We note in that regard that the Respondent in its IT3 appeared to be taking the position that the Appellant had not been dismissed and we are told that that was a position which was maintained throughout the Tribunal.  Moreover a question may arise, as the skeleton argument of Mr Bourne points out, whether or not there can be a dismissal where what terminates is the employment and not the contract of employment.  In this regard it may be material to have regard to the definition of the contract of employment.  In the Employment Rights Act in which it is at least arguable that the expression “employment” has a content which is distinct from a contract of employment.  

3.	Be that as it may, we consider that the case raises an arguable ground of appeal, we think it will take half a day to argue, skeleton arguments addressing the issue as we have described it to be submitted no less than 14 days prior to the appeal together please with photocopies of any authorities for which it is proposed to rely.  It is Category B for listing purposes and finally we should add that we have been asked whether Chairman’s notes of evidence might be appropriate and we have declined to order them.