Mahoney v King Printcrafts Ltd [1996] UKEAT 40_96_1112

EAT
Mahoney v King Printcrafts Ltd
[1996] UKEAT 40_96_1112 · 1996-12-11

JUDGE D M LEVY QC :

Mr K.R. Mahoney was in the employ of King Printcrafts Ltd for a period of time at the end of which in April 1995 his employment ended. After his employment ended he made a complaint dated 28 June 1995 to an Industrial Tribunal that he had been unfairly dismissed.There was a hearing of his complaint before an Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (South) on 27 October 1995. On that occasion Mr Mahoney was represented by Dr D. Grimaldi, a Counsel of an international law firm.The Company was represented by Mr Dobe of Counsel. On behalf of the Company Mr Dobe took a preliminary point. That preliminary point was that Mr Mahoney had not been sufficiently long in the employment of the Company for the Industrial Tribunal to have jurisdiction to hear his complaint.The Industrial Tribunal took evidence on that preliminary point on 27 October. Mr Mahoney gave evidence. Mr Mahoney's evidence was that he had been on a Youth Training scheme for a period until July 1993. That evidence was accepted by the Industrial Tribunal. As he had not been employed by the Company until the Youth Employment Training had come to an end, there was not two years' continuous employment before the date of his dismissal.Having regard to that evidence, the Industrial Tribunal referred in their Extended Reasons sent to the parties on 9 November to section 153(1) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 , and to the decision in Daley v Allied Suppliers Ltd [1983] ICR 90. They concluded:
"8. We are satisfied that the Applicant's status between September 1990 and July 1993 was that of a YTS trainee. The main payment came from the training college and he attended training one day a week throughout the three years. Applying the decision in Daley we find that as YTS trainee he was not employed under a contract of employment as defined in Section 153 of the 1978 Act. The Applicant commenced employment in July 1993. His employment terminated in April 1995. He had not been continuously employed for two years and the complaint is dismissed."
The appeal came on the ex-parte procedure before this Court and an Order was made permitting the matter to go ahead to appeal, so that the Chairman's notes of evidence could be obtained.The Chairman's notes of evidence provide material to support the findings of fact in the Extended Reasons. Dr Grimaldi, appearing on the appeal today, has sought to introduce fresh evidence but as we have explained to him there are strict rules before fresh evidence can be introduced and those rules, not having been complied with, we have not permitted him to adduce or to address us on such evidence.In the circumstances, there was evidence before the Industrial Tribunal on which the Industrial Tribunal could properly make the findings which are in the Extended Reasons and accordingly come to the conclusion which it did.In the circumstances, while thanking Dr Grimaldi for his careful and courteous submissions, this appeal cannot succeed and accordingly we dismiss it.