BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Johnson v Hampshire Probation Service [1999] UKEAT 1144_98_0302 (3 February 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1144_98_0302.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1144_98_302, [1999] UKEAT 1144_98_0302 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE C SMITH QC
MR E HAMMOND OBE
MR J A SCOULLER
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | IN PERSON |
JUDGE C SMITH QC: This is an appeal by Mr D. Johnson, the Appellant, against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at Southampton on 23 July 1998, of which Extended Reasons were sent to the parties on 29 July 1998, the Respondent being the Hampshire Probation Service. The Industrial Tribunal held that:
"The application fails. The deduction of which the Applicant complains was not a deduction of wages."
The question which falls to be decided is whether the lump sum allowance is different in kind from the mileage allowance and is arguably wages, whereas the mileage allowance is expenses, despite the decision in the case of London Borough of Southwark v O'Brien [1996] IRLR 420 in which the position was arguably different because the employee in O'Brien was only in receipt of a mileage allowance.
We think that this appeal should go forward to a full hearing. It is a short point of mixed fact and law. We all take the view that the matter will have to be dealt with on the facts as found by the Industrial Tribunal, and on the basis of the documents that were put before the Industrial Tribunal.
We think it important that the Appellant should seek and obtain legal advice before the hearing of this appeal because, with respect, it involves a matter of law which is proper to be argued by a lawyer, and not by Mr Johnson himself. He should seek the advice of a Citizens Advice Bureau or a Law Centre on this matter because it is something that he ought to have legal assistance on, otherwise he may not do himself justice on the matter.
We think that the matter will occupy the Tribunal for about two hours and we allot it Category C, skeleton arguments to be exchanged between the parties and lodged with the Tribunal 14 days before the hearing, setting out the points to be argued. There should be an agreed bundle of documents provided for the Employment Appeal Tribunal, to be lodged 28 days before the full hearing of the appeal.
