Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Henry v Lambeth College [1996] UKEAT 430_96_2810 (28 October 1996)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/430_96_2810.html
Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 430_96_2810
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H J BYRT QC
MR E HAMMOND OBE
MR J A SCOULLER
MR I HENRY APPELLANT
THE GOVERNORS OF LAMBETH COLLEGE
RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | APPELLANT IN PERSON |
JUDGE BYRT QC: This is a preliminary hearing in the course of an appeal from a decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (South), when they gave their decision on 31 January 1996, holding that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the Applicant's complaint of unfair dismissal because he had failed to get in his application in time.
The Applicant, now the Appellant before this Tribunal, is a Barrister who lectured in law at the Respondent's College, a College of Further Education. His work for the College came to an end in June 1995. He made a claim to the Industrial Tribunal as a result. The issue before that Tribunal was whether his contract was for a fixed term or whether it was a continuous contract, based upon employment by the Respondent since 1985. There was also an issue whether he had made his application to the Industrial Tribunal within the three-month period required, and that necessarily meant the Tribunal had to determine the terminating date of his contract which, in itself, would depend on whether it is a fixed term contract or a continuous employment. There is a third issue which Mr Henry has argued in front of us. He says the Tribunal disregarded clear evidence, given by two witnesses which would have had considerable impact upon these issues.
We have considered Mr Henry's submissions on this matter to see as to whether there was an arguable point of law that should go forward to a full hearing and we have come to the conclusion that there is. It is, we think, not practical to distinguish between the one issue and the other, and therefore the appeal should go forward as a whole for a full hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
With a view to assisting their determination, we think that it is necessary to request the Chairman's Notes to be produced of the evidence of Miss McEnhill, Mr Clishman, and of the Appellant himself, Mr Henry. In addition to that, there should be available for the Appeal Tribunal all the documentary evidence which was placed in front of the Industrial Tribunal. So be it.