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 >> Brooks v Secretary Of State For Trade & Industry [1997] UKEAT 1180_96_1407 (14 July 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/1180_96_1407.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 1180_96_1407 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
MRS T A MARSLAND
MR R H PHIPPS
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE
| For the Appellant | MR PETER MOONEY (Consultant) |
MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing has been to determine whether there is an arguable point of law raised by the appeals in this case against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at London (South) on 5th August 1996.
It is a case where two former directors of a defunct company were seeking to recover various entitlements against the Secretary of State under s.122 of the 1978 Act.
The conclusion of the Industrial Tribunal is essentially contained in paragraph 5 of the decision. They say this:
"5. ... It was clear to us that the picture was one of two co-owners undertaking work for which they received payment but which they directed themselves, being answerable in effect to nobody but themselves, although it was clear that both respected the opinion and guidance of Mr Michael Smith."
The point of law which we believe to be arguable in this case, is whether that decision was supported by any evidence. The evidence was that the directors did not own a majority of the shares in the company, and therefore, it would appear somewhat odd to refer to them as co-owners. It is put on the basis that that finding was perverse. Furthermore, they say that the role which the Chairman of the company, Mr Michael Smith played in the direction of the company was not properly taken into account by the Industrial Tribunal.
We consider that both points are arguable and fit for hearing before a full panel. It may be a good occasion on which this Court can review any earlier decisions to see if guidance can be given to Industrial Tribunals to enable them to resolve these difficult cases.
Accordingly, we direct that this matter come on for full hearing before the President. That the Notes of Evidence be asked for in this case. The evidence will have been relatively short. We hope that will not prove too burdensome for the learned Chairman, but we think that it would be helpful for us to have them in this case, partly because of the appeal itself, and partly because of the wider question which the President may which to consider.
On that basis, the matter will go ahead.
