United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 588_93_1401

Appeal No. EAT/588/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 14 January 1994

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

MR P M SMITH

MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP

---

MR J K TIERNEY          APPELLANT

HODGSON BROS (BUILDERS) LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MISS L CHUDLEIGH

(OF COUNSEL)

Messrs Balderston Warren

Station Place

Letchworth

Herts SG6 3AG

For the Respondents MR M DENCER

(OF COUNSEL)

Messrs Jameson & Hill

72-74 Fore Street

Hertford

Herts SG14 1BY


 


JUDGE LEVY: This is an appeal by James Kenneth Tierney against a unanimous decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Bedford on 1 June 1993 which held that Mr Tierney was not an employee of Hodgson Bros (Builders) Ltd within the meaning of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and dismissed his application. The reasons for what was an interlocutory decision were sent to the parties on 14 June 1993. Essentially the Grounds of Appeal are that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law, alternatively it was a perverse decision and they got the facts wrong.

We have carefully listened to the submissions made with persuasive force by Miss Chudleigh for the Applicant but having regard to the facts we are satisfied unanimously that the Tribunal was right. There were ample facts before it on which it could hold that the Appellant was not an employee of the Respondents. We do not think that the Tribunal misdirected itself in any way, nor do we think the decision of the Tribunal was perverse.

The high point of Miss Chudleigh's submission was her reference to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Young & Woods v West [1980] IRLR 201 where the well-known remarks of the then Master of the Rolls in Massey v Crown Life Insurance Co [1978] ICR 590, [1978] IRLR 31 were analysed and distinguished but at the end of the day we are quite sure that on the facts which were before them, it was open to the Tribunal to find that Mr Tierney was self-employed. The fact that they looked in contra distinction to him to how other employees were treated by the Company was of assistance to them in reaching their decision but it was not fundamental to that decision.

In the circumstances this appeal must be dismissed.