Appeal No.	 EAT/809/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 15 November 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR J C SHRIGLEY
MR A D TUFFIN CBE

MS A A ADEPOJU	APPELLANT

WHITBREAD PLC T/A WHITBREAD HOTELS	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR C SEKAR 
(Of counsel)
Instructed by 
Awoloye Kio & Co
Solicitors
199 Stockwell Road
Brixton
London
SW9 9ST	

JUDGE LEVY QC

1.	The Appellant in this case made an application to an Employment Tribunal claiming breach of contract, discrimination and unfair dismissal.  There was a hearing of her claim on 16 May at London (North).  Counsel who appeared for her then appears before us today on the preliminary hearing of her appeal.  At the end of the hearing the unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that the Applicant was not an employee within the definition contained in section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the decision was sent to the parties on 26 May 2000.

2.	From that decision the Appellant appeals.  In the normal way whether someone is not an employee is a matter of mixed fact and law to be determined at the Tribunal hearing.  The decision should show in the Extended Reasons why the Tribunal reached the decision it did.  When we read the decision each of us was unhappy about it, not least, because of the sentence in the paragraph on page 3 of the decision which says: “We find she is not an employee primarily because there was no lack of mutuality in the relationship.”  This illustrates the lack of detailed findings throughout.  Having heard from the submissions from Mr Sekar this morning, we are satisfied that there is a matter to go for a full Tribunal and that it would be of assistance to have the Chairman’s notes.

3.	We will therefore direct that the Chairman be asked for his notes of the hearing and remit the Appeal for a full hearing.  Mr Sekar has in paragraph 13 of the Notice of Appeal (which reads more like a Skeleton Argument than a Notice of Appeal) indicated that he may wish to seek to introduce by way of Affidavit evidence given which may not be in the Chairman’s notes.  It would be simpler and possibly cheaper, we suggested to him to try to reach an agreement with the Respondent’s solicitor of such evidence given rather than follow his route.  Category C.  Half a day.