United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 893_93_2403

Appeal No. EAT/893/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 24 March 1994

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MRS P TURNER OBE

MISS D WHITTINGHAM

---

MR H PEARSON          APPELLANT

MR G WOODHOUSE          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR

REPRESENTATION ON

BEHALF OF APPELLANT

For the Respondents NO APPEARANCE BY OR

REPRESENTATION ON

BEHALF OF

RESPONDENT


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an Appeal which we have been asked to deal with on the basis of written representations. The Appeal is against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Manchester on the 13 September 1993.

The Tribunal unanimously decided, for reasons notified to the parties on the 27 September 1993, that the Applicant, Mr Woodhouse, should be paid the sum of £1,074 redundancy payment. In the reasons for the decision the Tribunal stated that Mr Woodhouse was employed by the Respondent from the 27 June 1983 until the 4 December 1992, when he was made redundant on the Respondent ceasing trading.

The Tribunal referred to the figures for the calculation of the amount of the redundancy payment. Unfortunately, according to the heading of the decision, the Respondent was named as Harry Pearson. This was a mistake, as is apparent from reference to the Notice of Application presented to the Tribunal on the 1 February 1993.

According to the Notice of Application, Mr Woodhouse applied for a redundancy payment on the insolvency of his employer, stated to be a Company called Greenside Woodwork (Marple) Ltd.

In his details of complaint, Mr Woodhouse stated that he had been employed by that Company from the 27 June 1983 to the 4 December 1992, that he was made redundant when the Company ceased trading and that he had been informed by the Directors of the Company that the business had become insolvent, as the Bank had refused further credit.

A Notice of Appearance was filed on behalf of the Company on the 28 February 1993. It was signed by a Director, Mr Harry Pearson, on behalf of the Company. Unfortunately he stated, in the details under the heading "give the name of the Company Organisation", his own name, instead of the name of the Company.

It appears to us that there was never any question of Mr Woodhouse being an employee of Mr Pearson. We have been shown the relevant PAYE documents, which show as Mr Woodhouse's employer, Greenside Woodwork (Marple) Ltd. The decision of the Tribunal was against Mr Pearson personally. Not surprisingly, when notified of this decision he appealed by Notice of Appeal dated 1 November 1993. His ground of Appeal was that the Tribunal had made an order against Harry Pearson, who was not a party to the proceedings, and that the order should have been made against the Company, which did not contest Mr Woodhouse's application.

Written submissions were put in by Solicitors on behalf of Mr Pearson. At all material times, Mr Pearson was a Director of Greenside Woodwork (Marple) Limited, Mr Woodhouse was employed by that Company, between the dates mentioned. He was made redundant when the Company ceased trading. Mr Woodhouse applied to the Industrial Tribunal for redundancy payment and stated that the employer was the Company. In the Notice of Appearance, although Mr Pearson described himself as a Director, he put himself into the box for Organisation or Company, as the employer.

Mr Pearson says that he appeared at the Hearing at Manchester on the 13 September on behalf of the Company and did not oppose the decision of the Tribunal to award Mr Woodhouse the sum for redundancy payment. Unfortunately, when the decision was sent to him instead of the Company, he was described as the Respondent. The position of the Company has not changed. It offers no argument against the award. The decision taken by the Tribunal was inconsistent with the evidence. It should have been an order against the Company as employer, not against Mr Pearson personally.

The Tribunal was referred to the PAYE documents. In those circumstances the matter was drawn to the attention of the Industrial Tribunal at Manchester, but no response was received. In those circumstances an appeal was made to this Tribunal to allow the appeal against the Industrial Tribunal's decision.

It is clear from the facts that the making of the order against Mr Pearson was by error on the part of the Tribunal. The error was probably induced by the way that Mr Pearson had filled in the Notice of Appearance. On a close examination of all the documents, it is clear that Mr Pearson was under no personal liability to make the redundancy payment. The liability is that of the Company.

For those reasons the Appeal is allowed. The order on the Appeal will be that the Company, Greenside Woodwork (Marple) Ltd, be substituted as the Respondent named in the decision at the Tribunal for the name of Mr. Pearson. The order for the payment will accordingly be against the Company.