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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Eu v Rusty Casual Wear [1992] UKEAT 633_91_0311 (3 November 1992) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1992/633_91_0311.html Cite as: [1992] UKEAT 633_91_311, [1992] UKEAT 633_91_0311 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP
MR G H WRIGHT MBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MRS A EU
(In Person)
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by Mrs Amy Eu from a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting in London (North) given on the 19th September 1991. The Applicant appeared before that Court in person. It is clear that her English is not, by any means, fluent.
The Respondent against whom she claimed was called "Rusty Casual Wear", it may have been a Company because Mr Aresti is said to have been a director.
She claimed, what she called "unpaid wages of £15.60".
Mr Aresti alleged that she was not employed by the Respondents, she was a sub-contractor and that there had been no unlawful deduction in any event because his case was, that the work had been badly carried out.
The Tribunal accepted Mr Aresti's version of events, namely, that Mrs Eu was a sub-contractor. It followed therefore, that there was no jurisdiction in the Industrial Tribunal and it was for Mrs Eu to bring her claim in a Small Claims Court in the County Court.
However, the Tribunal then went on to consider whether or not the work had been carried out properly or not and the finding that she had not carried it out satisfactorily seems to us to have been an unnecessary finding in the light of the fact the Tribunal had no jurisdiction.
Mrs Eu is anxious that that finding against her should not prevent her from bringing her claim in the Small Claims Court. If she does proceed then it seems to us that the finding was quite unnecessary and not relevant to the issue before the Industrial Tribunal and therefore, that any defence to her claim in the Small Claims Court will need to be examined by the Court which has the responsibility and jurisdiction to deal with the allegations from each side. We therefore hope that anyone who does hear that claim will look at the allegations by way of defence to that claim afresh because the finding in the Industrial Tribunal was entirely obiter and unnecessary to its decision.
However, there is no error of law here and this appeal must be dismissed at this stage.
