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 >> Efstratiou v Cumberland Hotel & Cape Dutch Restaurant [1999] UKEAT 406_98_0103 (1 March 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/406_98_0103.html
Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 406_98_0103, [1999] UKEAT 406_98_103
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MRS T A MARSLAND
MR B M WARMAN
MR C J EFSTRATIOU APPELLANT
THE CUMBERLAND HOTEL & CAPE DUTCH RESTAURANT RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
| For the Appellant | DR J EFSTRATIOU (Representative) |
| For the Respondents | NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS |
JUDGE LEVY QC: This is an appeal against a decision of a Chairman of Employment Tribunal sitting alone at Norwich on 2nd December 1997, communicated to the parties on 21st January 1998. The hearing is this. Mr Christopher John Efstratiou, a commis chef, made an application to an Employment Tribunal dated 20th September 1997, complaining that the Respondent, his employer, was in breach of contract by failing to pay monies due to him when his employment ended. The Respondent's answer was dated 20th October 1997. Essentially the Respondent claimed that no monies were due.
The hearing, as we have said, was by a Chairman sitting alone. Why a Chairman should have been sitting alone in these circumstances is not quite clear to us, especially when the decision which he reached was that the contract between the parties had been frustrated. That contract appeared to have been considered frustrated notwithstanding the fact that the employers had given to the employee one month's notice. We cannot see any grounds for the holding of frustration. The Chairman says he has considered the cases of Hart v Marshall, Egg Stores (Stamford Hill) v Leibovichi and Williams v Watsons Coaches, but those seem to us to be nothing to the point when a notice has been given in the circumstances in which this was given. What sums, if any, are due to the Appellant have not been the subject of proper consideration. It is probable it is one month's notice which he seeks, but that is not a matter which is for us to decide. We will remit the claim to an Employment Tribunal to be chaired by somebody other than the Chairman who reached the decision appealed against. It may be of course that the respondents and the Appellant will be able to reach the measure of compensation without another hearing. We hope that is so.
I should add that leave for this appeal to go to a full hearing was given by another panel on 20th July 1998 and notice of this hearing has of course been given to the Respondent, who has indicated that they did not intend to appear today.