[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Coleshill Hydraulics Ltd v. Broadhurst [2000] UKEAT 669_00_2811 (28 November 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/669_00_2811.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 669_00_2811, [2000] UKEAT 669__2811

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Appellant


 


JUDGE H WILSON

1. This is a preliminary hearing of the appeal by the original Respondent Company against the decision of the Tribunal sitting in Birmingham in November 1999 and February 2000 that the Applicant was an employee, was entitled to receive a redundancy payment of £4,620, was entitled to damages for breach of contract in the sum of £2,181.57, and that there was no lawful deduction of wages by the Respondent and no arrears of wages payable by the Respondent to the Applicant.
2. We have been informed by letter from the Insolvency Service that the Respondent Company is in compulsory liquidation and that the Official Receiver does not wish to attend today's hearing. We have therefore decided to go forward with the appeal based on the papers which are before us.
3. The facts of the matter are that the Applicant was employed by the Respondent Company. Her salary and other conditions of employment were in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the document which appeared in page 26 of the bundle before the Tribunal. She received monthly payments by way of cheque; she sought advice from an insolvency expert, but her boss refused to accept the advice given, and continued trading.
4. Eventually she received a letter of termination dated 17 February 1999 and contended that, following the incorporation of the Respondent Company, at all times the terms and conditions of her employment remained the same. She relied on a number of positive matters such as PAYE taxation and that kind of issue, and negative things, like never attending a board meeting and the fact that she never had anything to do with the day to day management of the affairs of the Respondent.
5. The Tribunal set out in paragraph 10 the law of the matter and in paragraph 11 the cases which were found to be of assistance. Its findings of facts and conclusion were that the Applicant was a minority shareholder, with no control over day to day management, and paying tax under PAYE and Class 1 National Insurance. They found, therefore, that she was an employee, having regard to the 1996 Act.
6. They went on to find that her contract of employment was legal at the outset and was not made void by the fact that she was a director of the Respondent Company during the period covered by August and September 1998. The Respondent was neither insolvent at the material times nor, as stated, fraudulently or wrongfully trading, insofar as the Applicant was concerned. There were no arrears of wages due to her, but she was entitled to receive 3 months notice of termination, or to receive, by way of damages for breach of contract, payment in lieu of such notice, and they made a finding accordingly.
7. We can find no fault of law or fact with the way in which the Employment Tribunal reached its conclusion and expressed it, and accordingly there is no prospect of success for this appeal, if it were to proceed to full hearing, and accordingly we dismiss it at this stage.