[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Barbour v Rensow Patisserie Ltd [1998] UKEAT 466_98_0107 (1 July 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/466_98_0107.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 466_98_107, [1998] UKEAT 466_98_0107

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR T CATO (Solicitor) North Lambeth Law Centre 14 Bowden Street London SAE11 4DS


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): In this case the Industrial Tribunal dismissed Ms Barbour's Originating Application which she had brought against her former employers, Rensow Patisserie Ltd, on the basis that she did not have the requisite period of qualifying service, having been employed for less than one year.

The Industrial Tribunal Chairman, Mrs Jane Mason, took the view that in the exercise of her discretion she should not postpone the case. She had regard to Thomas v National Training Partnership, a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, but did not take into account a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal sitting in Scotland and it is, as it seems to us, arguable that the learned Regional Chairman erred in law in the way she approached this case and dismissing it at this time, pending the Seymour-Smith decision in the House of Lords, following a ruling by the European Court of Justice.

The argument for the Appellant is that one possible outcome of Seymour-Smith is that the European Court of Justice will conclude that the two-year qualifying period, which replaced the one-year qualifying period, was unlawfully discriminatory and therefore should not be given effect to.

It will further be argued that, if that were the outcome of the European Court's decision, then it is at least arguable that the English Courts will approach the question on the basis that there is no qualifying period that can lawfully be applied, bearing in mind that the one-year continuous period of employment had been replaced and was therefore not in existence as at the relevant date. I have formed no view about the outcome of an appeal on that issue, but I can see that it is arguable sufficient to allow this case to a full hearing.

The case raises an important issue. It would appear that the Appellant has the benefit of being represented through the North Lambeth Law Centre and that the Respondents have legal representation as well. That being so, I take the view that it is likely that at the appeal it will take approximately one day. It raises, as I say, an important issue which will affect other cases and I would like to mark it Category P to indicate that it will come before me.

There are, of course, no Notes of Evidence required and no other directions need to be given.