United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR PARRY Appellant in Person


 


THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law in an appeal which Mr Parry wishes to make against the decision of an Industrial Tribunal held in Reading on 5 August 1998. By their decision, the Industrial Tribunal dismissed Mr Parry's complaint against the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, that complaint having been brought against the fund for which the Secretary of State is responsible under the legislation.

The Respondents to the application, that is the Secretary of State, filed a Notice of Appearance in this case which is contained in their letter dated 26 March 1998 and were represented at the hearing by an executive officer, Mr Parr. It is unclear to us at the present time precisely what material was presented to the Industrial Tribunal to enable them to make their decision in this case. It is Mr Parry's case that he was employed for approximately six months by a company called A&M Office Contracts (Reading) Limited; that employment came to an end in December 1987. He sought to recover monies from the former employers by civil proceedings and obtained judgment in September 1992. The Industrial Tribunal looked at the time limit question and came to the conclusion that time started running from the date on which the Redundancy Payment Service notified Mr Parry of a refusal to pay him and on that basis, they held that he had made a complaint which was timeous.

The basis on which his complaint failed was that the employer had not become insolvent within the meaning of the legislation. Mr Parry wishes to argue that that decision was simply wrong in law having regard to the nature of the charge which was taken over the company, not only in relation to its property but also in relation to its business assets, that is that there was a fixed and floating charge. He makes the point that in this case he believes that the people responsible for running his company simply abandoned shell companies when they have had enough of them and when there are creditors knocking at the door, and then set up others. He would wish to argue that this is a case where plainly the company was insolvent and indeed, to all intents and purposes it appears that the Industrial Tribunal also regarded it for more practical purposes as being insolvent. The question will arise at the hearing of the appeal as to the precise definition of insolvency within the meaning of Section 183 of the Act.

At the hearing, no doubt the Employment Appeal Tribunal will also wish to consider the role of the Secretary of State in dealing with cases such as this and the desirability of them putting in a Notice of Appearance in the form in which they did in this case. We do not wish to encourage Mr Parry to believe that his appeal will succeed but we think in the circumstances here, it would be right for the matter to proceed to a full hearing when we will be grateful for such help as the Secretary of State's representative can give us at that appeal.

This is a Category B matter. It will take no more than an hour and a half to argue. Skeleton arguments will be required. Because there is some doubt in our minds as to what precisely happened at the Industrial Tribunal, in other words what evidence was produced, I think it would be of assistance if the Appellant were able to provide us with an affidavit within 28 days, setting out to the extent that he can remember, precisely what happened at the Industrial Tribunal and exhibiting to his affidavit any documents which he has in his possession which he says were presented to the Industrial Tribunal; that is documents both produced by himself and any document produced on behalf of the Secretary of State. When that affidavit has been received, it will of course be sent to the Secretary of State and they can give such comments on it as they wish, and to the Chairman of the Tribunal for his comments.