Appeal No.	 EAT/527/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 23 October 1997

Before
THE HONOURABLE LORD JOHNSTON
MRS E HART
MR A E R MANNERS

MR G ANNETTS	APPELLANT

ASA GROUP DEVELOPMENTS LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR D SHEPHERD
(Representative)
UCATT
40 London Road
Southampton
SO15 2AG	

	LORD JOHNSTON:   The background to this matter is that the applicant worked, to use a neutral phrase, with the respondent company for a considerable number of years before eventually employment was terminated as such. The issue before the Industrial Tribunal was at this stage of the process whether or not it had jurisdiction to hear the matter on the basis that Mr Annetts was not or was an employee of the respondent company and its decision, having heard evidence of the matter, was that he was not and was therefore to be regarded as self-employed.

	Before us Mr Shepherd argued that first of all the tribunal had misdirected itself in relation to the fact that it had not taken into account the fact that it appeared that Mr Annetts suffered an industrial accident in the course of his work with this particular company who apparently compensated him, without taking any point that he was not protected by the law in that respect.

	Secondly, Mr Shepherd argued before us that, properly understood, the evidence in relation to pricing of work carried out by the employee indicated that he should be regarded as an employee.

	As a matter of general law, it has been clearly established time and time again and recently in the case of Fleming v Secretary of State for Employment, in the First Division of the Court of Session, which as yet is unreported, that issues of employment as between an employer and employee for purposes of jurisdiction with regard to the Industrial Tribunal are questions of fact to be determined by that tribunal upon the evidence and not interfered with on an Employment Appeal Tribunal level save where there is an obvious error of law on the face of the record.

	This case discloses nothing in that respect. It is perfectly apparent to us that the tribunal properly applied the correct tests in considering whether or not as a matter fact the applicant was or was not employee.

	With respect to Mr Shepherd, we do not consider that the fact that the applicant was compensated for an accident adds any light to problem; nor do we consider that we are entitled to take the view that the tribunal having assessed and considered the evidence on the relation to the issue of pricing came to the wrong conclusion.

	In our opinion, therefore, this case does not raise a question of law and will not go any further. The appeal is dismissed.