[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Robin Ellis Ltd v. Gavigan [2000] EAT 1347_99_1102 (11 February 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/1347_99_1102.html Cite as: [2000] EAT 1347_99_1102

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR D CAMBRIDGE (Representative)


 


MR JUSTICE CHARLES: This appeal comes before us today by way of preliminary hearing. The parties are Robin Ellis Ltd and a Mr Gavigan. The Appellant is Robin Ellis Ltd, the Respondent before the Employment Tribunal.

1. The appeal is against a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at London (North) the Extended Reasons for which were sent to the parties on 21 July 1999. The Employment Tribunal refused to review that decision. The Extended Reasons as to that refusal were sent to the parties on 13 October 1999. The decision was that the Applicant, Mr Gavigan, was unfairly dismissed and the Employment Tribunal ordered that he be paid compensation. The basis for that decision was the rejection by the Employment Tribunal of the arguments advanced by the Appellant company that Mr Gavigan had only been employed from 1 April 1997.
2. The Appellant company was represented by a director or senior employee before the Employment Tribunal and has taken the same course today. It has made the point to us that it wished to know what the answer is to the question when Mr Gavigan became an employee. It thinks the Employment Tribunal got it wrong and the Appellant company has other employees in a similar position.
3. However, our function is limited to this case and our function today is to determine whether there is a reasonably arguable point of law raised on this appeal.
4. Reading the Extended Reasons as a whole, it seems to us that this Employment Tribunal had regard to the relevant legal test to determine whether or not prior to April 1997 Mr Gavigan was an employee, although he was not so described, and have concluded that he was an employee. There are a number of authorities which describe the decision of an Employment Tribunal on the question whether a person is an employee as one of fact, albeit one which goes to a judgmental issue at the heart of the case.
5. As we have said, it seems to us reading the Extended Reasons that the Employment Tribunal have had in mind the correct approach at law and therefore there is no reasonably arguable point of law raised on this appeal.
6. Finally, we record that we have indicated to the Appellant company that it would be sensible for it to seek informed advice as to the position relating to its other employees.
7. For the reasons given this appeal is dismissed.