[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Messrs Pye-Smiths Solicitors v Griffiths [1999] UKEAT 1274_98_0411 (4 November 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1274_98_0411.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1274_98_0411, [1999] UKEAT 1274_98_411

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Mr N Brain Solicitor Messrs Pye -Smiths Solicitors The Hall 4 New Street Salisbury SP1 2QJ
For the Respondent	Mr Watson (Of Counsel) Instructed By: Mr R L Griffiths Pittsmead Stratford - sub- Castle Salisbury SP1 3LL


 


JUDGE WILSON: This has been the full hearing of the appeal by the Appellant firm from the decision of the Chairman of Employment Tribunals sitting alone at Southampton on the 24^th August 1998 at a Preliminary Hearing at which he found that the employment tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's claim for damages for breach of contract.

1. The Applicant is a solicitor who merged his business with that of the Respondent which is another firm of solicitors. They entered into three written agreements as part of the process of merger. The first agreement was called the service agreement and principally contained the terms upon which the Applicant would be retained as a salaried partner.
2. The second agreement was the work in progress agreement, principally concerned with recording the terms upon which work in progress would be transferred to the Respondent. The third Agreement, the legal services agreement, was one with which this case is not concerned and about which there are no issues.
3. The merger ended ended unhappily and the Applicant has also brought a complaint of unfair constructive dismissal which has been adjourned generally pending the decision of the European Court of Justice in the case of Seymour Smith v. Perez.
4. We mentioned the constructive dismissal case because we have been provided with the Applicant's particulars and grounds of complaint and we notice that they are in some parts closely linked with the Agreement which was before the Chairman. We accept that they have not been adjudicated upon, but we nevertheless consider that we can take note of the fact that they are connected in that way in the complaints.
5. The Appellant firm has been represented today by Mr Brain and the Respondent, Mr Griffiths, by Mr Watson. Each representative had submitted skeleton arguments which the Court has found very useful and helpful and from which the representatives have not departed very far in their oral submissions today. Accordingly, we direct that the skeleton arguments be attached to our judgement today and be regarded as part of it.
6. The issue before the Chairman sitting alone was whether the work in progress agreement was a claim for damages for breach of a contract of employment or other contract connected with employment. It is the second part of that provision which falls to be interpreted.
7. It seems to us that it is primarily of question of fact for the employment Tribunal whether or not a matter before it has been shown to be another contract connected with employment. Of course the Chairman's decision on that matter is always open to appeal, but it is essentially a matter of fact in this case. In our judgement, there can be no doubt that the Chairman was right in concluding that the work in progress agreement was inextricably linked with the applicant's employment by the respondent. The decision came to which the chairman to that the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the Applicant's claim in that respect was the right and unimpeachable decision and we do not seek to interfere with it.
8. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed.