United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
For the Respondent	MR O SEGAL (of Counsel) Instructed By: Messrs Brooke North Solicitors Crown House Great George Street Leeds LS1 3BR


 


JUDGE H WILSON: This appeal has been considered at a preliminary hearing and the Tribunal on that occasion found that there should be an amendment to the Notice of Appeal so that the issue of whether an adjournment should have been granted to the Appellant could be argued.

1. At the hearing before the Employment Tribunal, the employers made allegations of illegality which had not been raised on their Notice of Appearance and the Appellant had had no notice of them until the morning of that hearing. The Appellant asked for an adjournment to enable him to gather up what material he could and the Tribunal postponed their decision on that application until they had heard his evidence. In the end they appear to have failed to make a decision about the application.
2. What had happened was uncovered by Miss Heal who represented the Appellant before the preliminary hearing under the services provided by ELAAS. The Tribunal received yesterday a notification from the Appellant that he would be unable to attend today due to a bereavement, but asking that his case be heard in his absence. There being no application before this Tribunal for an adjournment and the Respondent being represented today by Mr Segal of Counsel, we have proceeded with the hearing.
3. The Tribunal found that the Applicant's contract of employment was an illegal one because payments were made for employment under a contract entered into with an intention to defraud the Inland Revenue. The Appellant was paid £98 weekly, net of tax but also received a cash in hand payment of up to £100 a week from which neither tax nor National Insurance contributions were deducted. That arrangement, the Employment Tribunal found, had been made between the parties as a result of the Appellant's request. They also found that the reason for the request was to reduce or extinguish any liability for payments to his former wife. In those circumstances the unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that the Applicant's contract was illegal.
4. Dealing with the one matter, which is the matter before us, namely whether or not there should have been an adjournment, it may well be that there should have been an adjournment but in face of the undisputed evidence it seems to us that the granting of an adjournment would have made no difference to the outcome and accordingly we dismiss the appeal.