Appeal No.	 EAT/712/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 13 October 1997

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D PUGSLEY
MR L D COWAN
MISS A MADDOCKS OBE

MISS T JONES	APPELLANT

LINGFIELD LEISURE PLC	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR A M SNELSON
(of Counsel)
Messrs Parkes Wilshire Johnson
Solicitors
Highstone House
165 High Street
Barnet
Hertfordshire
EN5 5SU	

	JUDGE PUGSLEY:   In this case the appellant’s skeleton argument clearly discloses, in our view, an arguable point. We do not wish to say any more than that since it would be inappropriate to do so. 

	In a nutshell, the appellant had lost her job at a leisure centre and, as a consequence of loosing that job, it is the case, the appellant says, she lost the facility to carry out other work which the tribunal found she did on a self-employed basis. The tribunal concluded in paragraph 4:

“... that the Tribunal is only empowered to compensate the Applicant for her loss as an employee.”

It is pointed out that s.123 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is in very different terms. The loss as an employee is not a phrase found in the Act. The Act talks about loss sustained in consequence of dismissal. We are told that there is no authority directly in point. 

	We are unanimously of the view that this is a case where there is certainly an arguable point. We do not want to put it any higher than that. In our view this is clearly a case where the tribunal are faced with an arguable point and should be referred to a full hearing.