[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Green v HM Prison Service [1996] UKEAT 1095_95_2002 (20 February 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/1095_95_2002.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 1095_95_2002

[New search] [Help]

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 1095_95_2002

Appeal No. EAT/1095/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 20 February 1996

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MISS A MACKIE OBE

MR N D WILLIS

---

MR G E GREEN          APPELLANT

HM PRISON SERVICE          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF           APPELLANT


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is the Preliminary Hearing of an appeal against the decision of the Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal held at Ashford on 21 September 1995. In the extended reasons notified to the parties on 29 September 1995, the Chairman, having heard written representations from each side, stated his decision that the Applicant, Mr George Green was not employed by Her Majesty's Prison Service, the Respondents. He therefore had no right not to be unfairly dismissed by them. In those circumstances Mr Green's claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Mr Green served a Notice of Appeal on 13 October. He seeks to argue that the case law relied upon by the Chairman is flawed, due to changes which have taken place in Employment Law since those cases were decided. He contends that there is a legal error in the decision. The case was set down for a Preliminary Hearing to determine whether the point of law which Mr Green raises is reasonably arguable. The position today is that Mr Green has not, for understandable reasons, attended. He has made some further written representations in a letter dated 29 November 1995. Nobody has attended on behalf of the Respondent. That is because this is an ex parte Preliminary Hearing.

We have decided that, as this case raises a novel point, not previously decided by this Appeal Tribunal or by a higher Court in an employment context, we would prefer to give a decision after we have heard argument on each side. We are not content to make a decision at this stage, simply on the basis of the written representations. We direct that there is a full hearing of this appeal. We express the hope that, at the full hearing, it will be possible for Mr Green to be represented if he is unable to attend personally. We also hope that the Treasury Solicitor will make arrangements for the arguments of the Prison Service to be put before us orally, so that we have a chance to discuss this matter in full with both of the parties, before we make a decision which will undoubtedly set a precedent for this class of case. For those reasons we direct a full hearing.