[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Clayton v Badger Inns Ltd [1998] UKEAT 373_98_0112 (1 December 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/373_98_0112.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 373_98_112, [1998] UKEAT 373_98_0112

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR JOHN MEREDITH-HARDY (of Counsel) MR J CARMICHAEL Messrs Trevanions Solicitors 15 Church Road Parkstone Poole Dorset BH14 8UF


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: The Appellant, Ms Clayton, was employed by the Respondent as a trainee manager, together with her partner, Mr Thompson from 28 November 1994 until her dismissal effective on 24 February 1995.

By an Originating Application presented on 6 April 1995 she complained of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination. It was her case that she was dismissed by reason by pregnancy. She alleged that when she informed her area manager, Mr Crow, that she was pregnant on 14 February 1995 his reaction was "get rid of it or get out". When Mr Thompson indicated on 17 February that he and the Appellant intended to stay in the employment, both were promptly dismissed.

The case came on for hearing before an Employment Tribunal chaired by Mr J A E Gorst sitting in Southampton on 17 August 1995. By a decision with extended reasons dated 21 September 1995 that Tribunal found as a fact that the Appellant's account was true, rejecting a different account given by Mr Crow and found that pregnancy was the reason for dismissal. In those circumstances the Tribunal upheld the complaint of sex discrimination and made an award of compensation, including a figure of £2,500 for injury to feelings, totalling £6,009.41. As to the complaint of unfair dismissal the Tribunal said that by reason of the uncertainty created by the Seymour-Smith case they would adjourn that claim sine die.

There the matter lay until 18 December 1997 when the Tribunal sent a letter to the Appellant asking her to give reasons why the unfair dismissal claim should not be struck out for want of jurisdiction, she having been employed for only 3 months.

The Appellant replied by letter dated 6 January 1998, but by a decision dated 9 January the Regional Chairman, Mr Ian Edwards, ordered that the claim be struck out. An application for a review of that decision was dismissed on 16 February 1998 by a full Tribunal chaired by Mr L W Belcher. That decision, with extended reasons, was promulgated on 12 March 1998.

On 18 February 1998 the Appellant appealed against the strike out decision. Her point was and has been developed today by Mr Hardy on her behalf, that at the time of her dismissal there was no qualifying period for a claim of unfair dismissal by reason of pregnancy under what was then Section 60 of the Employment Protection Consolidation Act 1978 (now Section 99(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.) That appears to be correct. Section 64(4) of the 1978 Act (now Section 108(3)(b) of the 1996 Act), added by the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993, came into force on 10 June 1994 and removed the qualifying period for pregnancy dismissals.

It is therefore arguable that Mr Edwards was wrong to strike out a claim which, on the Gorst Tribunal's findings of fact, was made out and was one which the Tribunal had and has jurisdiction to determine. In these circumstances we shall allow the appeal to proceed to a full hearing. For that purpose we direct that the case be listed for 2 hours, Category C and there shall be exchange of skeleton arguments not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing, copies of those skeletons to be lodged at the same time with this Tribunal. There are no further directions.