Appeal No.	EAT/1247/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 13 May 1998

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
(AS IN CHAMBERS)

MR B LAMBERT	APPELLANT

CROYDON COLLEGE	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

MEETING FOR DIRECTIONS

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON	
For the Respondents	MR J NAYLOR 
(of Counsel)
Messrs Stonehams
Solicitors
Stonehams House
17 Scarbrook Road
Croydon
CR0 1SQ	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):	This has been a directions hearing essentially to consider three applications made by the appellant in person, Mr Lambert. He is appealing a decision of an Industrial Tribunal which is set out in extended written reasons and was promulgated to the parties on 23rd September 1996.

	The issue before the Industrial Tribunal related to whether they had jurisdiction to consider the complaints which Mr Lambert was making. The appeal has been allowed to go ahead for a full hearing.

	One of the arguments which the employers were prepared to advance and, as I understand it, Mr Lambert himself was ready and able to deal with, was a contention that the employment relationship between them did not come to an end at the end of December 1995, but rather some time in January 1996 as a result of various events which occurred. But as it turned out, looking at the Industrial Tribunal’s decision and for whatever reason, the Industrial Tribunal has effectively considered and considered only the effective date of termination as being 31st December 1995. There is a reference to 17th January 1996, in paragraph 17 of the decision, but it is not linked, as I read the decision, to any specific event. It may be that the tribunal did not feel it necessary to consider an alternative case for the date of the effective termination, it may be at that time the College were not minded to advance that case. We cannot say at this time.

	The respondents put in an answer to this appeal in which they roundly assert that the Industrial Tribunal’s decision cannot be faulted and that it is correct in law. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of their respondents answer they advance what I could call the argument for the effective date of termination being in January 1996. That contention contained in their respondents’ answer involves them in asserting that there was an acceptance of a cheque in January 1996 by the appellant not as wages but as an advance on the settlement sum and accordingly he had accepted the termination of his contract with immediate effect on that date. That is not a finding which was made by the Industrial Tribunal in its decision and I can understand that there may be room for argument as to whether the tribunal would have made such a finding. Accordingly it seems to me that the paragraph in the respondents’ answer which takes this point would more conveniently appear in a cross Notice of Appeal because the true position is that the College are saying firstly, the decision is correct on its face, and secondly, if that were not correct, then they would ask that the Industrial Tribunal reconsider their decision and adjudicate on the alternative submission that the employment came to an end by mutual consent in January 1996 as a result of the events which happened then. 

	Accordingly, Mr Lambert has applied to strike those paragraphs out from the respondents’ answer, paragraph 3 being contingent on paragraph 2. I think he is technically correct, but I am satisfied that the justice of the case can be met by permitting the respondents to serve a cross Notice of Appeal making precisely the same points as they have made in paragraphs 2 and 3, and presumably inviting the Employment Appeal Tribunal to remit the matter back to the Industrial Tribunal were the appeal to succeed. That being so, the paragraphs will be struck from the respondents’ answer on those terms. 

	Mr Lambert also asked for the Chairman’s Notes and as a result of a discussion with him, it has become apparent that that request was essentially contingent on him having to deal with the points raised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the respondents’ answer. Therefore, in the light of this order, there will be no Chairman’s Notes ordered.

	Mr Lambert also applied to adduce additional evidence himself in the form of documents, I think. That application, again, related to his concern that he would have to deal with a submission which the tribunal had not ruled on and which depended on evidence. Accordingly, that application is also dismissed.

	The respondents are to serve their cross Notice of Appeal within 14 days. Mr Lambert is to respond within 14 days after receipt if he so wishes.