[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hill v Davan Caravans Ltd [1993] UKEAT 313_93_1511 (15 November 1993) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/313_93_1511.html Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 313_93_1511

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

BAILII case number: [1993] UKEAT 313_93_1511

Appeal No. EAT/313/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 15 November 1993

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MR R H PHIPPS

MRS P TURNER OBE

---

MR D G HILL          APPELLANT

DAVAN CARAVANS LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant IN PERSON


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P): This is an appeal by Mr Hill who was a caravan sales executive with Davan Caravans Ltd. He appeals against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal given at a hearing on 15 February 1993 and contained in a written decision dated 10 March 1993. The decision of the Industrial Tribunal was that Mr Hill's claim that he had been unfairly dismissed failed. He appeals against that decision. Between the lodging of his Notice of Appeal on 15 April and the hearing today he has, in fact, had a further hearing before the Industrial Tribunal. At his request the Industrial Tribunal held a hearing on 27 August to review its previous decision on a point raised by him that another person had been employed after his dismissal to do his work.

Mr Hill has appeared in person. He has submitted a skeleton argument prepared by a firm of solicitors instructed by him at the end of September. He has added to that helpful skeleton argument some well thought out and fluent arguments of his own. We have considered these arguments. What they really come down to is one point, that he was an employee who was made redundant, but his selection for redundancy was unfair.

We are unable to see how he can possibly succeed on a full hearing of an appeal. The Industrial Tribunal held as a matter of fact that the reason why Mr Hill was selected for redundancy was that his employers mistakenly, but reasonably, believed that he was self-employed. That is a finding of fact. The only jurisdiction that this Tribunal has is to hear appeals on points of law. There is no point of law in this appeal. On this Preliminary Hearing the order we propose to make is that this appeal should be dismissed.

In dismissing the appeal all members of the Tribunal would like to congratulate Mr Hill on the skilful and helpful manner in which he has explained to us his complaint about the decision but, for the reasons mentioned, there is nothing this Tribunal can do on this appeal save to dismiss it.