[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Cambus Holdings Ltd (t/a Stage Coach Cambus) v. Rahim [2000] UKEAT 1165_00_0910 (9 October 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/1165_00_0910.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 1165_00_0910, [2000] UKEAT 1165__910

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR C C SAUNBY (Solicitor) Messrs Toller Hales & Collcutt Solicitors Castlian Chambers 2 Castilian Street Northampton NN1 1JX


 


JUDGE REID QC: This is a preliminary ex parte hearing in which the appellant, which was the respondent below, Cambus Holdings Ltd, seeks an order reversing the decisions of the Employment Tribunal sitting at Bury St Edmunds made on 11th August and/or 1st September 2000, that the respondent to the appeal, Mr Rahim, the applicant below, should have leave to amend his Originating Application to add to his original claim for unpaid wages a further claim under s.100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

1. For these purposes, it suffices to say that there is clearly an arguable case as to whether, as a matter of construction, either Mr Rahim's letter of 8th August 2000 or anything which was said thereafter, indicated a desire to make a claim under s.100. There is clearly, at the least, an arguable case as to whether anything at present on paper from Mr Rahim amounts to a claim pursuant to s.100.
2. It is accepted by the appellant that Mr Rahim is entitled to pursue his claim for unpaid wages and, as I understand it, that the issue, in essence, between the appellant and Mr Rahim is whether Mr Rahim resigned, in which case the appellant would have been entitled to deduct from his wages the cost of training; or whether he was dismissed otherwise than for misconduct, in which case they would not be entitled to make the deduction.
3. Those are matters which will have to be determined in due course, but for the moment we direct that the matter should go to a full hearing if and so far as is necessary. We are informed that there is a possibility that Mr Rahim may not in any event be pursuing the s.100 claim. If that is indeed the position, then no doubt the appellant will inform the tribunal as soon as possible. But the for moment all that we do is direct that this matter should go to a full hearing.
4. I should add that there is on the file an amended Notice of Appeal. If and in so far leave is necessary for those amendments to be made, we give leave for them to be made.