[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Intergrity Financial Solutions v. Hopkins [2001] UKEAT 0927_01_1112 (11 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0927_01_1112.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 927_1_1112, [2001] UKEAT 0927_01_1112

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MISS EMMA ALEXANDER (Solicitor) Messrs Blake Lapthorne Solicitors New Court 1 Barnes Wallis Road Segensworth Fareham Hampshire PO15 5UA


 


JUDGE D PUGSLEY

1. This is a case where we have had the benefit of a very good and helpful skeleton argument that can serve as a template as to how grounds of appeal can be assessed and evaluated for the purposes of a preliminary hearing.
2. We do not intend to deal with the facts of this case other than to say it raises an issue on the construction of what was a Wages Act and also a construction, in particular, of Rule 4 of the contract that says

"If you are dismissed you will forfeit any payment not yet paid to you regardless of the period to which the payment relates."

Rule 8 of the contract says

"Payment of commission will be made one month in arrears from the date of assessment."

3. We say, at once, that we can see all sorts of arguments arising as to whether an employee, who was wrongfully or unfairly dismissed by the employer, irrespective of whether in the case of the unfair dismissal there was continuity of employment to maintain an action, should nevertheless forfeit the commission that is payable. There may be all sorts of legal arguments that can be put that an employer should not be in a position to benefit from their own unlawful or unfair action.
4. Indeed, even in a case where an employee was not unfairly dismissed but nevertheless paid money in lieu of notice, there might be an issue that the decision to dismiss was still wrongful. In those circumstances it could arguably be wrong for the court to uphold as contractually binding the clause found at rule 4 of the employment contract.
5. Having said all that we consider that this Notice of Appeal clearly raises an arguable issue and therefore, we decide this matter should go before a full Tribunal, category C, half a day. Normal orders as to skeleton arguments.