England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM AN EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
(His Honour Judge D Pugsley)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Friday, 1st February 2002

Friday, 1st February 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY: This is an application by Mr T K Ramanlal for permission to appeal against two decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. He also asks for an extension of time in which to appeal against the first of those decisions.
2. The background to this dispute, in which Mr Ramanlal appears in person, is that for three years before coming to work in England in May 1999 he was working with a leading company in Portugal called Lusopiyus Import Export Company. He had a prestigious and secure position with that company. In February 1999 he was contacted by Mr Sheth, who is the first respondent to the proceedings, about coming to work in England. Mr Sheth was involved at that time in finding and supplying staff for post offices. He has since run into some trouble, as I understand from the papers that he has been convicted of false accounting in the operation of a sub-post office. He persuaded Mr Ramanlal to come and work in England. Mr Ramanlal went to work at the Post Office in Little Bookham where Mrs Patel was the sub-postmistress. He worked there until his dismissal on 25th August 1999. He says that the rate of pay which he should have received was £700 per month.
3. The circumstances in which Mr Ramanlal was dismissed led him to present to the Employment Tribunal a complaint on 1st November 1999. His claim was for unlawful deductions from wages, lack of itemised pay slips and unfair dismissal. The respondent to those proceedings was Mr Sheth.
4. The Employment Tribunal heard the claim on 24th July 2000. Both sides appeared in person. At that stage Mrs Patel had also been joined as a respondent. The Tribunal reached the unanimous decision that the complaints set out in Mr Ramanlal's application should be dismissed. Their reasons for doing so were sent to the parties on 5th March 2001. I note that that is an unfortunate and unusual length of time for the parties in an Employment Tribunal to receive the extended reasons for the decision.
5. The conclusions of the Tribunal are summarised in paragraphs 31-34 of the Extended Reasons. I shall read them out in view of the importance that those conclusions have in the subsequent appeal proceedings:

"31. Mr Ramanlal was not `employed' within the meaning and application of that term as defined by Section 230 [of the Employment Rights Act 1996]. He was a freelance worker, who was placed by Mr Sheth in sub post offices at Burgess Hill, Little Bookham, Winchelsea and Battersea Park Road, as we have recorded.

32. If Mr Ramanlal was `employed', so that he was entitled to complain of ging unfairly dismissed, we further find that he was not dismissed: he resigned.

33. We find that Mr Ramanlal was a `worker' employed by the Second Respondent [that is Mrs Patel]. He entered into a contract for personal services with her. He is therefore entitled to complain of not receiving all sums properly due to him.

34. We find that Mr Ramanlal did in fact receive all sums due to him, as detailed by Mrs Patel."

6. Mr Ramanlal was disappointed by the decision. He made an unsuccessful application for a review of the decision by the Employment Tribunal. That was rejected by the Chairman on 14th June 2001, as, in his view, the further matters mentioned by Mr Ramanlal in his written applications had no reasonable prospect of successfully altering the decision which had been made.
7. Mr Ramanlal then sought to appeal against the decision. The matter first came before the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 21st September 2001. The Tribunal was chaired by Mr Recorder Langstaff QC, who gave a judgment on behalf of the Tribunal, allowing the appeal to proceed on a limited point which was identified as the only one which raised a reasonably arguable point of law. That point concerned the procedure in the Employment Tribunal in relation to the necessity for applying for an extension of time to file a notice of appearance under the Employment Tribunal rules and whether Mr Sheth was entitled to take part in those proceedings having failed to apply for an extension of time. All the other grounds on which Mr Ramanlal sought to appeal were not allowed to proceed.
8. I should mention that at that hearing Mr Ramanlal was represented by Mr Waithe, counsel appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme. In his skeleton argument on this appeal Mr Ramanlal makes the point that the counsel representing him at that hearing did not advance all the points that he wanted made. He also says that he was not allowed to speak personally at that hearing. So the first appeal which Mr Ramanlal wishes to bring is against the decision at the preliminary hearing deciding that Mr Ramanlal only had a reasonable prospect of appeal succeeding on that one point.
9. The full hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal took place before a differently constituted tribunal on 10th December 2001. His Honour Judge Pugsley chaired the hearing and delivered the judgment on behalf of the Appeal Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed after hearing the parties in person. The Tribunal noted, quite understandably, that Mr Ramanlal was upset about the course that his case had taken in the Tribunals, as he believed that the case against him was wrongly decided. On the only point on which the appeal had been allowed to proceed, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that there was in fact no error in the procedure adopted by the Employment Tribunal because Mr Sheth's notice of appearance had in fact been subject to an order extending his time for filing it. This point was not apparent to the Appeal Tribunal at the preliminary hearing. Mr Ramanlal now wishes to appeal against that second decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and, as I have indicated, applies for an extension of time in which to appeal against the first decision of 21st September 2001.
10. I have pointed out to Mr Ramanlal that he faces a difficulty in this court in attempting to pursue this case further. He has to satisfy the court that his grounds of appeal have a real prospect of success. That is required by the rules, as there is no point in cases proceedings on appeal which have no real prospect of succeeding. I have also pointed out to him that his right of appeal is restricted to errors of law in the decision of the Employment Tribunal.
11. Mr Ramanlal has submitted a very helpful and detailed typed skeleton argument raising a large number of points about the history of this dispute. It sets out his criticisms of his representation by the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme. He makes legal submissions about his employment status. He says that, contrary to what the Employment Tribunal held, he did have a contract of employment with Mr Sheth. He had come from a good job in Portugal in order to have a permanent job in this country. So, he says, the Employment Tribunal is wrong in saying that he was not an employee. He also sets out in detail his case relating to the non-receipt of payments that were due to him for the work done by him. Finally, he makes submissions about his claim for unfair dismissal. He maintains that he had given up a precious job in Portugal to get a permanent job with Mr Sheth. He had various criticisms of the way that Mr Sheth has conducted himself and he maintains that his dismissal was not only unfair but what he describes as "constructive dismissal". Finally, he makes points as to the burden of proof being on the respondents. So he maintains that there are errors in the decision.
12. I have come to the same conclusion as the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Mr Ramanlal may well be convinced that there are errors in the decision of the Employment Tribunal -- I know that he disagrees with almost everything that they decided -- but the difficulty, which I have already identified, is that the decisions made by the Employment Tribunal were decisions of fact on the basis of the evidence before it, and, unfortunately for Mr Ramanlal, the facts were not found in his favour. There is no appeal against findings of fact. There are no errors of law in the decision of the Employment Tribunal in the treatment of the claims for unlawful deductions and unfair dismissal, and the only possible legal point which arose in the procedure of the Tribunal turns out to have had no factual basis because the notice of appearance of Mr Sheth had in fact had time extended for its findings.
13. For those reasons, I conclude that the appeal has no real prospect of success. I know that Mr Ramanlal will be disappointed by that decision, but it is a decision I have reached after reading all three decisions which he has obtained from the Tribunals and taking into account all the points that he has so helpfully made in his skeleton argument.
14. The application is refused.
Order: Application dismissed.