United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Mr Underwood Solicitor Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


MR RECORDER UNDERHILL QC

1. In our view this appeal should proceed as to liability. The Tribunal were no doubt within their rights to substitute the name of Mr and Mrs Walker for that of Mr Pearce, but since this only occurred at the hearing we consider it arguable that Mr and Mrs Walker cannot retrospectively be rendered liable for the non-service of a Respondent's Notice of Appearance. We do not say that the argument is straightforward. There may be an argument that, read as a whole, box 5 of the IT1 does indeed correctly identify the business, rather than Mr Pearce personally, as the Respondent. That, however, is not the basis on which the Tribunal approached the matter, and we are satisfied that the issues to which the appeal gives rise cannot sensibly be determined by us on a summary basis.
2. So far as the appeal on compensation is concerned, neither Mrs Walker in her original Skeleton Argument nor Mr Underwood, who has helped her and us this morning under the ELAAS scheme, have been able to identify any point of law; and we dismiss the appeal so far as compensation is concerned.
3. As for directions, it seems to us this will require one and a half hours for argument, Category C. No directions are sought as regards Chairman's Notes or Notes of Evidence, and we cannot for ourselves see that any is necessary. In the event, we hope unlikely, that the Respondent to the appeal takes a different view, an application will have to be made to this Tribunal. Standard directions are that Skeleton Arguments have to be exchanged fourteen days before the hearing.