 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Smalley v Secretary Of State For Employment [1995] UKEAT 866_95_2811 (28 November 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/866_95_2811.html Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 866_95_2811 |
||
[New search] [Help]
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H J BYRT QC
DR D GRIEVES CBE
MR R TODD
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR
BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
JUDGE BYRT QC: This is an appeal from the decision made on 25 May 1995 by a Chairman sitting alone for the Liverpool Industrial Tribunal. He decided that the Applicant (and now the Appellant) was not entitled to a payment from the Secretary of State in respect of a claim under Section 122 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, when the company she worked for became insolvent.
The facts quite shortly are that Mrs Smalley had joined the company in 1971. At that time there were three shareholders and three directors, namely her husband, his father and uncle; in other words it was, in every sense, a family business.
In due course, the Appellant became a director herself and a shareholder. In 1982 she got a contract of employment and thereafter she received a weekly wage, paid National Insurance contributions and PAYE. By 1989 she and her husband were sole shareholders and directors.
In 1992, at the instance of the bank, Mr and Mrs Smalley had to mortgage their home and inject a further £40,000 capital into the business. From then onwards, they had almost equal shareholdings. For the last 80 weeks, before the company went insolvent, she herself received no salary. Payment under Section 122 is limited only to employees and the Secretary of State in this case has contended that the Appellant was not an employee.
We have this morning received a statement from Mrs Smalley, in which she makes a variety of comments and advances certain arguments in relation to the Chairman's stated reasons. In effect, she says that she was in every sense an employee; she had a contract of employment; she was paid wages which were taxed under the PAYE system; made National Insurance contributions. So far as control is concerned, she advanced a number of arguments, some of which are good and some not so good, but at the end of the day the Chairman had to weigh up all these factors and make a difficult decision about whether she was an employee or not.
We think that this is a case which should be argued fully. We have not been referred to any authorities, and there must be certain authorities which offer guidance on the issues in law in this case.
In all the circumstances, we think this is an appropriate matter to go forward to a full hearing and that is the decision of all of us.