Hunter- Addey v Rural Pursuits Ltd [1996] UKEAT 778_96_1111

EAT
Hunter- Addey v Rural Pursuits Ltd
[1996] UKEAT 778_96_1111 · 1996-11-11

JUDGE PUGSLEY :

In this case under the special procedure, we are asked to consider the case of Mr Mark Christian Hunter-Addey and Rural Pursuits. By a Notice of Appeal dated 11th July 1996 received by the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 25th July 1996, the appellant, the applicant in the case below, seeks to appeal a decision of the Sheffield Industrial Tribunal in which they said that they were not prepared to hear this matter because it was an illegal contract. In particular in paragraph 10, the tribunal found:
"10. We find both parties were adopting a method of paying the applicant designed to defraud the revenue. ..."
Therefore following the case of Neal v Dean of the Employment Appeal Tribunal - EAT/1364/95, it was decided by the Industrial Tribunal that they should refer the papers to the Inland Revenue to take what steps as they thought appropriate. They dismissed both the claim and the counter-claim because it was on an illegal contract.The case we have noted has a long and troubled history which was set out in the extended reasons prepared by the Chairman. It is also pertinent to note that at paragraph 7 the tribunal note that:
"7. ... the evidence of the applicant was imprecise and lacking in any detail. Essentially what we are asked to do by the applicant is to go into all the documents which have been produced and provided to us in the form of bundles and made an order which is just an equitable in all the circumstances. The applicant had not provided any summary of his claims."
In this case, the appellant has not appeared. We do have the benefit of a skeleton argument. In that the appellant states that he accepts the first part of the contract was unlawful, however, he does have a claim based on a contract dated 17th July 1995, and therefore he asks for that to be reheard.It seems to be, although the details are not clear, that the appellant is seeking to say that can sever the part of the contract. In his originating application and in the whole of hearing, it seems to be accepted that there was a period of continuous employment.We can find, raised by his skeleton argument and notice of appeal. nothing that we can identify as an error of law in the tribunal decision. It may be that there are matters that the appellant wished the tribunal to consider now that were not raised in the original hearing. It may be that if he had made an application some time ago for a review, that it may or may not have been granted. There is no error of law in the decision which we can identify and relate to his notice of appeal or his skeleton arguments.In the circumstances we do not concede any issue has been raised which justifies this case proceeding to a full hearing. We therefore dismiss the appeal.