BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Baxter v. Safe Air International Plc [1999] UKEAT 730_99_2610 (26 October 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/730_99_2610.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 730_99_2610 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H WILSON
MR J A SCOULLER
MR G H WRIGHT MBE
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | Mr T Parkin (Of Counsel) Instructed by: Mr J M Towns Messrs Towns Needham & Co Solicitors John Dalton House (4th Floor) 121 Deansgate Manchester M3 2AR |
JUDGE WILSON:
This is the preliminary application of the proposed Appeal by the Appellant against the finding by the Chairman of the Employment Tribunal sitting alone, that the Appellant ordinarily worked outside Great Britain and accordingly that, under Section 196(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain his claims.
The facts of the case were that the Appellant was engaged on a series of one off contracts for the Respondent, who rented a fleet of vans and small trucks and had a pool of drivers who took on offers of jobs as they arose. The trips were usually to European countries and the circumstances in which the case arose were of a journey to Athens and Turkey. The Chairman found that, on each individual journey only a very small period of time, about three hours on aggregate, was spent in the United Kingdom and the remainder of time was spent abroad. He therefore concluded that he was without jurisdiction.
The issues were that the Appellant claimed that although he drove to European cities he was in fact employed in this country. The Respondent said first that the Appellant was not an employee but was engaged ad hoc to do specific jobs. Secondly the Respondent said that his negligence justified the non payment of the wages which were claimed. Before the Employment Tribunal the Appellant had been represented by a Union Official and the Respondent represented by its Chairman and the finding was as already referred.
It seems to us that an important point of principle is involved in this Appeal which is one concerned with pure law and therefore it should proceed to a full hearing with a time estimate of 2 hours and be placed in Category B.
