[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Stokes v Top Security Rangers UK [1998] UKEAT 1350_97_0602 (6 February 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/1350_97_0602.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 1350_97_602, [1998] UKEAT 1350_97_0602

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR O SEGAL (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing was to determine whether there are arguable points of law raised by the appeal in this case. By a decision of an Industrial Tribunal Chairman sitting alone on 5 September 1997 the Applicant's application to amend his IT1 application was refused.

The short points which are raised, which are fit for hearing in our judgment, are firstly, it is not at all clear why it was that there was any application for an amendment because it would appear that Mr Stokes' Originating Application was sufficient to comprehend what it appears was sought by way of amendment. Secondly, it appears that the Industrial Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion which was unsupported by any evidence and thirdly, that the Chairman may have misdirected himself in law as to the proper interpretation of Section 100(1)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

This is an unusual case. It would appear from the facts stated by the Chairman that Mr Stokes had long working hours, that during the first available period for time off work he overdid it at a beer festival and within three hours of returning home was requested by his employer to drive to his place of work, where he would be working in and around moving vehicles and being required to drive.

Mr Stokes took the view that, as a result of the beer festival and his participation at it, it would be dangerous for him and for others if he were to attend or seek to attend at his place of work.

Without giving any indication as to how the Tribunal will review the matter when it comes to hear the full appeal, we are prepared to say that those three arguments that we have identified are all fit for a further hearing. In the light of this judgment, I do not think the Notice of Appeal needs to be amended.

We obviously do not need any Notes of Evidence because no evidence was given and I do not think that we need to give any other directions, save that this will be a Category B case, which should heard by a High Court Judge, preferably by myself, if that is possible.