United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 529_95_1010

Appeal No. EAT/529/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 10 October 1995

HIS HONOUR JUDGE J HICKS QC

LORD GLADWIN OF CLEE CBE JP

MISS C HOLROYD

---

MR N A HALLSWORTH          APPELLANT

MR PAUL STOW & MRS DEBORAH STOW          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR A HALLSWORTH

(In Person)


 


JUDGE HICKS QC: Mr Hallsworth, the Appellant, was employed by the Respondents Paul and Deborah Stow from 12 August 1991 in their photographic business. It was a business which went through certain vicissitudes. They first of all ran it themselves and then disposed of if it in some way to a Mr McGrath, but he in due course disappeared and the Stows took the business back. The Tribunal found that there was continuity of employment throughout that episode but the Stows, as the Tribunal found, were still seeking to dispose of the business and indeed at one stage offered it to Mr Hallsworth, but he refused. Eventually, on 22 April 1994, the Respondents dismissed Mr Hallsworth on the basis that he was redundant because they had disposed of the business to a couple who were minded to do all the work themselves and therefore needed no staff.

The Tribunal reminded themselves of the provisions of Section 57 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 under which they were required to find what the reason for the dismissal was and whether the dismissal was fair. They found that the reason was redundancy, in the circumstances which I have described. They also reminded themselves of Section 81(2) of the Act, which describes the test for redundancy, and they also considered the provisions of the regulations made under the Act, which treat a dismissal connected with the transfer of a business (which was happening here) as automatically unfair unless there is an economic, technical or organisational reason for the dismissal. They addressed the question whether there was a redundancy and found that that was the reason for the dismissal. They addressed the question of fairness, in the course of which they dealt with Mr Hallsworth's submissions that there was unfairness because of the lack of notice and they considered the evidence on both sides about that. They addressed the question whether there was an economic, technical or organisational reason for the dismissal in the context of the transfer and found that there was an organisational reason, namely the intention of the purchasers to carry out their own work and not therefore to need staff. In those circumstances we have been unable to see that there is any arguable case that the Tribunal erred in law.

The two points Mr Hallsworth advances as to that are the same points that were submitted to the Industrial Tribunal, the lack of notice and the fact that the dismissal, as he puts it, was for financial reasons. The Tribunal dealt with those points in the ways that we have described. We therefore have come to the conclusion that there is no arguable question of law which could be raised on an appeal and that the appeal must be dismissed.

We add that Mr Hallsworth is further aggrieved because he has not been paid, he says, the sums that were awarded him by the Industrial Tribunal. We gather that he has available to him advice from a solicitor and we are quite sure that that advice could and should include how to enforce payment of the money that is due to him. That obviously is a matter he can take up.