[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Lethbridge & Ors v British Steel Plc [1999] UKEAT 861_99_2710 (27 October 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/861_99_2710.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 861_99_2710

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

APPEARANCES

 

For Mr D J Lethbridge (EAT/861/99)	MR L CRAWFORD (of Counsel) ELAAS
For Messrs Jones, Downes and Baddeley (EAT/923/99)	MR L CRAWFORD (of Counsel) ELAAS


 


LORD JOHNSTON: This is a preliminary hearing in an appeal by four former employees of a company, HH Robertson (UK) Ltd which was taken over or at least acquired (to use a neutral phrase) by British Steel Plc. In the ensuing arrangements in the course of which it is asserted that British Steel publicly or at least in relation to the position of the employees of HH Robertson, denied that this was a relevant transfer in terms of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 ['TUPE'], the four appellants were effectively made redundant and required to, which they eventually did, sign COT 3 agreements which, on the face of them, deny them the usual rights that employees have to go to the Employment Tribunal in the event of termination of their employment.

1. Before the Employment Tribunal the question of jurisdiction was entertained against the background that by signing the COT3 Agreements each of these four gentlemen had signed away their rights to appear before the tribunal to claim unfair dismissal and accordingly the issue had to be determined as to whether that was a valid position.
2. The position adopted by the four appellants before the Employment Tribunal was effectively that they had been induced to sign the agreements by a false misrepresentation by British Steel, that is to say, the assertion that TUPE did not apply, against which background they had accordingly signed. There was also an issue of duress, but that was not pursued by Mr Crawford who appeared on behalf of the appellants before us today.
3. Mr Crawford's submission was that in terms of the question of inducement and false misrepresentation the tribunal, in paragraphs 5 and 6 and particularly in paragraph 6 of their decision, had addressed themselves to the wrong questions as to whether or not inducement had been or could be established in this case. Furthermore, although it was unfortunate that they arrived at a late stage in the hearing, it has declined to take into account documents, including a memorandum from British Steel, which would seem to suggest that it was at that time accepted that TUPE would apply because there was a transfer of an undertaking.
4. At this stage of the proceedings it is sufficient for us to determine only whether or not upon the face of the decision of the Employment Tribunal there is a case to answer in respect of whether or not they did address themselves to the right question and reached the right conclusion.
5. At this stage we have no hesitation in concluding that Mr Crawford has raised an issue of law with regard to the way in which the tribunal has directed itself or perhaps not directed itself in paragraph 6 particularly. We are therefore satisfied that there is an issue to try in this case in relation to the issue of inducement based on a false misrepresentation, but not on the question of duress, which is now to be regarded as a dead letter.
6. On that basis these cases will be allowed to proceed to a full hearing. The case to be listed for half a day, Category C. Skeleton arguments to be lodged with this Appeal Tribunal not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full hearing.