[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Light Ideal Ltd (t/a Niki Ltd) v Gerogiokas [1997] UKEAT 824_97_1710 (17 October 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/824_97_1710.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 824_97_1710

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR P DEMOSTHENOUS (Director)


 


JUDGE BYRT QC: This is a preliminary hearing in relation to an appeal from the Industrial Tribunal's decision when it sat at London (North) The decision was promulgated on 26th March 1997, and by that decision, the tribunal held that the employee had been unfairly dismissed and made an award of £2,568.00. It is against that decision the employer appeals.

This is a case in which it must be borderline whether the tribunal's reasons tell sufficient of the story and make plain the evidence upon which it makes its finding to enable the parties to know how and why they won and lost. We find that there are whole areas where these matters are not dealt with in the decision. But there is another and more substantive point which we think is arguable and which should go forward to a full hearing of this matter, and that relates to the continuity of employment. The respondents' IT3, their Notice of Appearance, makes plain that by the time of his dismissal the employee had only been employed for something like two months; and yet at the outset of that decision they made a finding that the employee had been employed by the respondents for four years. Mr Demosthenous has indicated that this issue of the continuity of employment was drawn to the attention of the Industrial Tribunal, and indeed, the Chairman made various enquiries about certain of the documentary evidence which was germane to it.

In any event, we take the view whether it was drawn to the attention of the tribunal or not, this is question which goes to the jurisdiction of the tribunal and, in consequence, it is something which the tribunal should have taken up for itself once it was apparent on the IT3 that there was this issue. This matter has not been covered in the tribunal's decision and we think that it is on both these grounds that this matter should go forward for a full hearing, as in our view the respondents have an arguable case.