MR DAVID MICHAEL BUTLER v THE GOVERNMENT OF BRUNEI DARUSSALAM [2000] UKEAT 1414_99_1502

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
BAILII case number: [2000] EAT 1414_99_1502Case No Appeal No. EAT/1414/99Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
Between
MR DAVID MICHAEL BUTLERAPPELLANTTHE GOVERNMENT OF BRUNEI DARUSSALAMRESPONDENT
Before
His Honour Judge Harold Wilson Mr P A L ParkerDate 15 February 2000
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant MR THOMAS BROWN (of Counsel) The Free Representation Unit 4th Floor 8-14 Verulum Street London WC1X 8LZ JUDGE WILSON : This has been the preliminary hearing of the proposed appeal by the applicant in the original proceedings against the decision of the Employment Tribunal that it was without jurisdiction to hear the claim for unfair dismissal and redundancy, and accordingly it was dismissed. Mr Brown has represented the proposed appellant, as he did before the Employment Tribunal. It is clear from the extended reasons given by the Employment Tribunal that the matter was treated before them as a preliminary hearing in which neither party called any evidence but relied on submissions and in particular the applicant's written contract of employment, which was signed by him and of course by the employer.[2]Clause 10 of the contract is headed "Statutory Rights" and the wording of that paragraph are as follows:
"Upon the expiry of this contract the employee shall not become entitled to any compensation for unfair dismissal to any redundancy payment merely because this agreement is not renewed and the employment is not extended."
[3]The extended reasons record the submissions made in paragraphs 2 and 3 and paragraph 4 records the findings and the reasons for the findings of the tribunal.[4]Mr Brown today submits that what was excluded in Clause 10 of the contract was compensation but not the right to bring a case for unfair dismissal and redundancy. He says that the compensation is irrelevant. So far as the redundancy side is concerned he relies on clause 3.3 of the contract of employment which relates to a gratuity and submits that that cannot help either because it is not specific as to amount.[5]In paragraph 4 of the extended reasons the Employment Tribunal states:
"4 … Our view is that the intention of the parties is to be looked at, rather than that the Tribunal should embark upon a meticulous examination of the words actually used. The intention of the parties was in our view by Clause 10 to exclude claims of unfair dismissal and for a redundancy payment. To say that the clause simply excludes the right to be compensated while leaving intact the right to bring claims for a declaration that the employee has been unfairly dismissed is in our view a construction which this clause will not bear. …"
[6]In our judgment, there is no error of law into which the tribunal has fallen and there is no prospect of success if this matter were to proceed to a full hearing. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed at this stage.