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 >> Jones v Lingfield Leisure Plc [1997] UKEAT 712_97_1310 (13 October 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/712_97_1310.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 712_97_1310 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D PUGSLEY
MR L D COWAN
MISS A MADDOCKS OBE
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE
| For the Appellant | MR A M SNELSON (of Counsel) Messrs Parkes Wilshire Johnson Solicitors Highstone House 165 High Street Barnet Hertfordshire EN5 5SU |
JUDGE PUGSLEY: In this case the appellant's skeleton argument clearly discloses, in our view, an arguable point. We do not wish to say any more than that since it would be inappropriate to do so.
In a nutshell, the appellant had lost her job at a leisure centre and, as a consequence of loosing that job, it is the case, the appellant says, she lost the facility to carry out other work which the tribunal found she did on a self-employed basis. The tribunal concluded in paragraph 4:
"... that the Tribunal is only empowered to compensate the Applicant for her loss as an employee."
It is pointed out that s.123 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is in very different terms. The loss as an employee is not a phrase found in the Act. The Act talks about loss sustained in consequence of dismissal. We are told that there is no authority directly in point.
We are unanimously of the view that this is a case where there is certainly an arguable point. We do not want to put it any higher than that. In our view this is clearly a case where the tribunal are faced with an arguable point and should be referred to a full hearing.
