Appeal No.	 EAT/373/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On  1 April 1999

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
MR D A C LAMBERT
MR J R CROSBY

MS T CLAYTON	APPELLANT

BADGER INNS LIMITED	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

FULL HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	Neither present or represented (written submissions)

MR J CARMICHAEL
MESSRS TREVANIONS
Solicitors
15 Church Road
Parkstone
Poole
Dorset BH14 8UF	
For the Respondent	Neither present or represented

MESSRS FYNN & PARTNERS
Solicitors
70 Richmond Hill
Bournemouth
Dorset BH2 6JA

	THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):	It is argued by the Appellant and not contested by the Respondent that the Employment Tribunal fell into error when it concluded on 9 January 1998 that the complaint of unfair dismissal made by Ms Clayton should be dismissed as the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to deal with it.  The background can be shortly stated.

	Ms Clayton was an employee of Woodhouse Inns Limited, formerly Badger Inns Limited.  She brought proceedings on 6 April 1995 complaining that she had been unfairly dismissed as at 24 February 1995 and that she had been unlawfully discriminated against, namely that she had been dismissed by reason of her pregnancy.  On 17 August 1995, the Southampton Employment Tribunal found that the reason for her dismissal was her pregnancy.  That decision was given in August.  She then sought to have her case on unfair dismissal heard, which had been adjourned pending the decision in Seymour Smith.  It was pointed out to the Employment Tribunal that there was no need to await the outcome of the Seymour Smith decision from the European Court of Justice since as a matter of domestic law there was no qualifying period of time which had to be served where an Applicant was complaining that she had been dismissed by reason of pregnancy.  That submission was founded on Section 99(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.  The position is that the law had been changed as a result of an amendment to the 1978 Act, which came into force on 10 June 1994.

	We are unanimously of the view, with great respect to the learned Chairman, that he was in error in requiring the Applicant, now the Appellant, to show a qualifying period of service and accordingly the decision that her complaint of unfair dismissal should be struck out was erroneous in law.  As I have indicated at the outset, the error alleged by the Appellant in this case is also acknowledged on behalf of the Respondents.  Both parties are asking that the appeal be allowed and the matter remitted to the Southampton Employment Tribunal for a hearing. We unanimously agree with the position taken up by the parties in this case.  It is clear that an error has been made by the learned Chairman, who is not to be criticised since the law in this area is exceptionally complicated.  It is our duty to correct the error once it has been brought to our attention, which we now do by allowing the appeal and ordering that the matter be remitted back to the Southampton Employment Tribunal for further consideration.