[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Dixon v. Hackney [2000] UKEAT 1237_99_1502 (15 February 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/1237_99_1502.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 1237_99_1502

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR SIMON THOMAS (Solicitor) NAHT (Legal Department) 1 Heath Square Boltro Road Haywards Heath West Sussex RH16 1BL


 


JUDGE WILSON: This is the preliminary hearing of the proposed appeal by the original applicant to these proceedings against the decision of the Employment Tribunal that there had been no breach of contract and no unlawful deduction of wages.

1. Mr Thomas has represented the proposed appellant. Mr Thomas' submissions are two-fold, but I will first, briefly, recapitulate the facts, which were before the Employment Tribunal.
2. The proposed appellant had been employed as a temporary Head Teacher of one of the respondent authority's schools. That contract terminated at the end of the academic year in 1998.
3. During the course of that temporary contract, the appellant was one of those interviewed for the post of permanent Head Teacher at the school. He was told by the Governors, in due course, that they would be recommending his appointment to the local education authority, subject to the receipt of satisfactory references and satisfaction about other things such as health.
4. In due time a very unsatisfactory reference was received which indicated dishonesty with a previous employer and also indicated dishonesty with the interviewing body so far as this job was concerned. In October 1998 the proposed appellant was told that he would not be recommended for the permanent job and that was the end of his employment with the authority.
5. Mr Thomas says that the respondent should have told the proposed appellant that the references were unsatisfactory. We do not consider there is any prospect of success if that point proceeds to full argument.
6. Mr Thomas goes on to complain on the proposed appellant's behalf, that the provisions of the Education Act 1996 should have been fulfilled. Having heard what he has to say, we consider that the matter should proceed to full argument on the following question: whether in the light of the findings of fact set out in paragraph 11 of the extended reasons, the Employment Tribunal erred in law in going on to find that it did not have to consider the provisions of paragraphs 23 to 27 of the Schedule 14 of the Education Act 1996.
7. We categorise the matter Category C and put a time estimate for the full argument of one hour.