[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Mortimer v Black Horse Agencies Ltd [1998] UKEAT 696_98_0110 (1 October 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/696_98_0110.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 696_98_0110, [1998] UKEAT 696_98_110

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR JOHN QUIGLEY (Solicitor under ELAAS on behalf of the Appellant)


 


LORD JOHNSTON: This is a preliminary hearing in the appeal by Mr M Mortimer in respect of a finding of the Employment Tribunal that he had resigned and was therefore not constructively dismissed from his employment with the respondents, Black Horse Agencies Ltd.

Before us Mr Quigley, who appeared for the appellant, focused very concisely four points upon which he would rely at a full hearing. Firstly, that the tribunal had misdirected itself by taking into account material that was presented to the appellant only after he had intimated his resignation, particularly the letter of 26th September. Secondly, and more fundamentally, that upon the evidence properly understood, it was more than arguable that the employer had sought unilaterally to alter a fundamental term of the employee's contract, namely salary and to some extent status, not on basis of negotiation, but on a basis, as it were, of demand. Furthermore, he submitted that in so far as the tribunal had been influenced by the failure on the part of Mr Mortimer to use the grievance procedure consequent upon the intimation of the employer's intentions, the tribunal misdirected itself in as much as grievance procedures could not bear upon what was otherwise to be categorised as a material breach of contract going to the root of the employment contract itself. Finally, he made a subsidiary point that the tribunal had failed to admit evidence on the second day of the hearing with regard to computation effectively which it had requested on the first.

We are satisfied that these points are of a sufficient weight and gravity in law to warrant investigation by a full hearing and we shall so order limited to those points. We say that purely because within the grounds of appeal there is a reference to the Transfer of Undertaking Regulations. To our mind they should not feature in this case at this stage. The appeal should restricted to the matters that have been raised before us and we shall so order.

Leave to amend the Notice of Appeal within 28 days granted to conform to the limited grounds allowed.