[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Brown v Luxrad Ltd (t/a Surbiton Hill Garage) [1998] UKEAT 1255_97_1506 (15 June 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/1255_97_1506.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 1255_97_1506

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR B ELKINGTON (of Counsel) Messrs Langley & Co Solicitors Sun Court 66 Cornhill London EC3V 3NB


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: This appeal raises three issues. The first concerns the proper construction of a written service contract entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent.

The issue is whether or not that was a fixed-term contract for three years, terminable on notice, or not.

The second issue raised in the Notice of Appeal is whether, if it was terminable on notice, one month was a reasonable notice period or whether it should be a greater period of notice.

As to the first point we think it is arguable, in the light of the way in which this contract came to be finalised, and we have been referred by Mr Elkington to Punjab National Bank v De Boinville [1992] 1 WLR 1138, and in particular the judgment of Staughton LJ and the reference to a passage in the speech of Lord Reid in London & Overseas Freighters Ltd v Timber Shipping Co [1972] AC 1, which is set out at page 1148 C - F of the report and Staughton LJ observations at page 1148 G - H.

As to the second point Mr Elkington has indicated that he no longer wishes to pursue the argument that, if it was terminable on notice, that one month's notice was not a reasonable period and accordingly we shall delete paragraph 6 (1) (b) of the Notice of Appeal.

The final point concerns the Chairman's alternative finding at paragraph 7 of his Extended Reasons dated 18 September 1997 that the contract was illegal. The point here taken is that the parties did not raise the issue of illegality during the hearing and no proper opportunity was given to them to make submissions at the close of the hearing. The Appellant relies on the decision of this Tribunal in Laurie v Holloway [1994] ICR 32.

We have considered the Chairman's written comments which are before us, but we think that the point ought properly to be dealt with by both parties filing affidavits within 21 days of the date of this order dealing with the question of illegality during the course of the hearing. Once those affidavits have been lodged, copies should be sent to the Chairman for his further comments.

The only other directions which we need give are that this case will be listed for half a day; Category C and that skeleton arguments should be exchanged between the parties, not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing. Copies at the same time to be lodged with this Tribunal.