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 £1, 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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Arthur Anderson (A Firm) & Anor v. Taylor [1999] UKEAT 413_99_2705 (27 May 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/413_99_2705.html
Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 413_99_2705

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


BAILII case number: [1999] UKEAT 413_99_2705
Appeal No. EAT/413/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 27 May 1999

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK

MRS J M MATTHIAS

MRS M T PROSSER



(1) ARTHUR ANDERSON (A FIRM) (2) MR R CARR APPELLANT

MISS L TAYLOR RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING – EX PARTE

© Copyright 1999


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellants MR V FLYNN
    (of Counsel)
    Messrs Charles Russell
    Solicitors
    8-10 Fetter lane
    London
    EC4A 1RS
       


     

    JUDGE PETER CLARK: This appeal raises an important question on the proper construction of s. 7 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (contract workers).

  1. The applicant, Miss Taylor was employed by Alchemy as a cleaner. She worked at an office block, Broad Quay House, Bristol. That block was owned by Standard Life (the Landlord). These appellants, Arthur Anderson and Mr Carr, a partner in that firm, occupied the second floor of the building. Arthur Anderson were tenants of the Landlord. King Sturge were the managing agents for the block appointed by the Landlords. King Sturge entered into a contract with first Kleen-e-Quip Ltd and then Alchemy to clean the common parts of the building.
  2. The question is whether Alchemy supplied the applicant to do work for Arthur Anderson under a contract made with them.
  3. The Employment Tribunal sitting at Bristol answered that question in the affirmative and permitted the applicant's claim to proceed against these appellants.
  4. The appellants contend that there was no contract made between Arthur Anderson and Alchemy and accordingly they cannot be liable to the applicant under and by virtue of s.7 of the Act.
  5. We are satisfied that the appeal raises arguable questions of law as formulated in the Notice of Appeal and we shall direct that the case proceed to a full appeal hearing.
  6. We further direct that that hearing should be listed for three hours, Category A. There will be exchange of skeleton arguments between the parties not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing. Copies of those skeleton arguments to be lodged at the same time with this tribunal. There are no further directions.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/413_99_2705.html