[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Sheehan v Post Office Counters Ltd [1998] UKEAT 417_98_0105 (1 May 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/417_98_0105.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 417_98_0105, [1998] UKEAT 417_98_105

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR MARK LYNE (of Counsel) Messrs Littlejohn & Co Solicitors 118 Kenton Road Kenton Harrow Middlesex HA3 8AN


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether or not there is an arguable point of law in an appeal which Mr Sheehan wishes to make against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal Chairman, sitting alone, at London (North) on 28th November 1997. His decision was committed to writing and was sent to the parties on 3rd February 1998.

The Originating Application which Mr Sheehan had presented against Post Office Counters Ltd was brought under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The issue on which the learned Chairman was ruling was whether for the purposes of that legislation the applicant, Mr Sheehan was engaged in employment as defined by s. 68(1) of the Act.

The Industrial Tribunal Chairman having heard argument from Counsel on either side, concluded that by virtue of the express terms of the contract which Mr Sheehan had entered into with Post Office Counters Ltd, he was not a person falling within the definition of s. 68(1).

There are, so we have been told, some 297 sub-postmasters whose position may be affected by the issues in this appeal. This is not the first time the Employment Appeal Tribunal has had to consider the status of a sub-postmaster. It did so in 1981, but there the facts had been agreed, and in due time careful consideration will have to be given as to the weight to be attributed to that particular case.

For the purposes of this hearing, we consider that it is arguable, without giving any indication one way or the other as to the likely outcome, that the Industrial Tribunal Chairman erred in law in the respects set out in the skeleton argument which has been submitted in this case.

Mr Lyne has very helpfully summarised those submissions to us. We would not wish to confine the ambit of the appeal to a summary, but can say, because it is succinct, that the written skeleton argument raises the points which seem to us to be arguable.

I would have thought that there would be no need for the Notes of Evidence in this case. I am not prepared to order them at this time. It may be that in due course an application will be made which I will then consider as to whether Notes of Evidence are required, but that is a decision which is better taken after the respondents have filed their answer.

I regard this as sufficiently important in terms of the potential ambit of the appeal, having regard to the numbers of people in a similar position who have entered into standard form contracts, to list this as a Category A case. It will last, I would have thought, for about one day. I do not think that there are any other directions that I need to give as this time. I am grateful to Counsel for his very clear submission and for holding the brief of his colleague who drafted the written skeleton argument.