[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Gregory v. Scapa Filtration Ltd [1999] UKEAT 869_99_0111 (1 November 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/869_99_0111.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 869_99_111, [1999] UKEAT 869_99_0111

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Mr J Quigley (Solicitor) ELAAS


 


JUDGE WILSON:

1. This preliminary hearing involves a matter of law, concerning the decision made by the Employment Tribunal that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the applicant's claim. As the Tribunal saw it, it was a dispute between the insurer and the applicant and not between the applicant and his employer.
2. Mr Quigley of ELAAS, who has appeared to present the case on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that there was in fact in reality, a contractual issue between the appellant and the employer, because the only documents to do with the insurance scheme which were received by the applicant, were the initial letter of the 1 April 1987, and a document dated 19 February 1990. The letter informed him that as an additional benefit to his employment, the employers had effected a permanent health insurance policy, designed to safeguard him against long term sickness, and went on to set out the terms of the insurance. The second document of the 19 February 1990, varied the terms of the insurance cover to exclude HIV/AIDS.
3. Apart from those two documents, the appellant had no papers at all. Mr Quigley submits that the true position in contractual law is that the contract is between the insurer and the employer, and that in light of what happened in the facts found by the Tribunal, there was a live issue about the terms of his contract of his employment between the appellant and the employer.
4. In our judgement, this is a matter which should go to full argument, on the question whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law, in failing to discern a live issue of contract law, as between the appellant and the respondent.
5. 2 hours at Category C.