MacKenzie v Burnley Borough Council, Court of Appeal - United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal, February 13, 2003, [2003] UKEAT 1322_02_1302

Resolution Date:February 13, 2003
Issuing Organization:United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
Actores:MacKenzie v Burnley Borough Council
 
FREE EXCERPT

Copyright 2003

Appeal No. PA/1322/02/ST

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 13 February 2003

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE J McMULLEN QC

(SITTING ALONE)

KATHARINE MACKENZIE APPELLANT

BURNLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

(RULE 3(10) APPLICATION)

Revised

PA/1322/02/ST

APPEARANCES

PA/1322/02/ST

- 3 -

JUDGE J McMULLEN QC:

1 This is an application from a decision of the Registrar in respect of a Notice of Appeal lodged on 7 October 2002 by the Applicant. I will refer to the parties as Applicant and Respondent. The Applicant claimed that her fixed-term contract with the Respondent Council had been terminated by way of wrongful dismissal on the grounds of redundancy. The Respondent indicated that the proper Respondent was not Burnley Borough Council.

Introduction

2 Arguments took place before the Employment Tribunal sitting at Manchester, Chairman Mr J.E. Goodman on that issue leading to a decision promulgated on 5 September 2002, after a hearing on 19 August. The Applicant had not been employed ever by the Respondent, and it thus determined the preliminary issue against the Applicant and dismissed the Originating Application.

3 The Applicant represented herself, called no witness but gave evidence herself. The Respondent was represented by a Solicitor, who called the Programme Officer.

4 The Applicant appealed against the decision. The Registrar determined on 30 October 2002, that the EAT did not have jurisdiction, since her Notice of Appeal did not indicate any error of law. This decision was made following the sift of the Notice of Appeal in accordance with PD 2002 by Mr Justice Wall. He had indicated in a document disclosed to the Applicant that it seemed unarguable that the Applicant was employed by the Respondent Council and so recommended that the Registrar exercise her power under Rule 3(7).

5 Today, Mr Goodall has appeared and made succinct arguments to back up a detailed skeleton argument and affidavit produced by the Applicant. It is important to understand my jurisdiction under Rule 3(10) and Employment Tribunals Act 1996 s. 21(1), which is to consider whether the Notice of Appeal raises a question of law. In my judgment it does not, and I will dismiss the application from the Registrar and uphold her decision.

Employment Tribunal findings

6 The Applicant had been engaged by the South West Burnley Development Trust (a Company Limited by Guarantee) and...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL