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 >> Motor Auctions (Leeds) Ltd v Dyson & Anor [1996] UKEAT 739_96_1810 (18 October 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/739_96_1810.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 739_96_1810 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H J BYRT QC
MR D A C LAMBERT
MRS J C RUBIN
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellants | MR S GORTON (of Counsel) Steggles & Mather Solicitors 121a Saughall Road Blacon Chester CH1 5ET |
JUDGE BYRT QC: This is a preliminary hearing in respect of an appeal against a decision on quantum of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Leeds on 2 April 1996, having earlier found that the Appellants had been guilty of unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
The Respondents, following their dismissal, became partners in a business of motor traders. They secured a bank loan through the agency of Mr Elliott, who was a former director of the Appellant Company. To arrange that loan, he had made use of the services of another Company which was, again, his own, called Kanica Properties Ltd. Part of the history of events related in the Tribunal's reasons, is that the Respondents, Mr Dyson and Mr Earle, somehow found their way onto the books of Kanica Properties Ltd. Therefore the Tribunal had to consider whether that meant that an employer-employee relationship had been developed between the Company and these two gentleman. With the greatest of care, in paragraph 3 of the their reasons, they came to the conclusion that they remained self-employed.
However, when it comes to the question of assessing the Respondents' earnings from running their motor trade business, Mr Gorton, who has appeared on behalf of the Appellants, has demonstrated to our satisfaction that there is a certain ambiguity about the figures, disclosed in paragraph 6 of the Industrial Tribunal's reasons . It would seem that the drawings to which he has been referring, have been considerably in excess of that which it would have been permissible for these two people to draw from their self-employed business even having regard to the credit facilities they had through the bank. He suggests this income is significantly greater than that which has been attributed to them by the Industrial Tribunal when they found that they were each limited to £12,000.
We feel that the reasons set out in paragraph 6 of the tribunal's reasons originally gives insufficient information to enable us to be sure that they have approached this matter in the right and proper way. We think that this matter ought to go forward to a full hearing and that to assist the Tribunal at that stage they should have the notes of the Chairman dealing with this issue of remedy. Accordingly, we give a direction that the Chairman's notes on remedy be made available to the full Tribunal.
