[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Binning v. Brookfield Aviation International Ltd [2001] UKEAT 1214_00_1203 (12 March 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1214_00_1203.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 1214__1203, [2001] UKEAT 1214_00_1203

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


MR JUSTICE HOOPER:

1. This is an ex-parte preliminary hearing. We have had the benefit of a skeleton argument and grounds of appeal prepared by R.G. Bruce on behalf of the Appellant and The Australian Federation of Air Pilots. Neither Mr Bruce nor Mr Binning have appeared before us today to further the arguments.
2. On 19 May an Employment Tribunal sitting at London South, Chairman Ms M.E. Stacey, decided unanimously that the Originating Application made by the Appellant be dismissed.
3. Mr Binning is an Australian National and normally resident in Australia. He was employed by the Respondent flying the A310 airbus. He was based in Dubai. He was engaged under a contract dated 18 November 1997 between the Appellant and the Respondent. Under the contract his duties were that of an airline pilot with Air Maldives, the national flag carrier of the Maldives. He was contractually obliged to function in accordance with the instructions of personnel of Air Maldives. The law applicable to that contract was the law of Maldives (see paragraph 9 of the Extended Reasons of the Employment Tribunal).
4. The Appellant has never worked in the United Kingdom and has never paid tax in the United Kingdom.
5. The Employment Tribunal concluded that the Appellant was an employee of the Respondent. The Tribunal went on to hold, however, that the Appellant ordinarily worked outside Great Britain and his contract of employment was governed by the law of the Maldives. Thus, the provisions of section 196 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 precluded the Employment Tribunal from having jurisdiction. It is said in a skeleton argument that section 196 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 offends the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: it is said that it offends Article 14 of the Prohibition of Discrimination, Article 13, the Right to an Effective Remedy and Article 6, the Right to a Fair Trial. There is also complaint about the failure to disclose certain documents. We see nothing to suggest that those documents could have assisted the Appellant in his case.
6. As to the arguments presented on the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms the Employment Tribunal had to apply section 196 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In any event, we add for the benefit of completeness that we see no merit in the arguments raised under the Convention.
7. There are no arguable merits in this appeal and the appeal is therefore dismissed.