Patel v Specsavers Optical Group Ltd (Contract of Employment – Whether Established): EAT 13 Sep 2019

JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application/claim
On the specific grounds of appeal put forward by the Appellant (the Claimant before the ET), the ET had not erred in refusing the application by the Claimant to add a second respondent to the claim when he did not have an ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate in respect of the proposed Second Respondent. The Claimant’s request to amend the grounds of appeal on the day of the hearing to widen the grounds of appeal was refused: paragraphs 3.5 and 3.12 of the PD applied and Khudados v Leggate [2005] IRLR 540 followed.
The Claimant had not established that the Tribunal’s written reasons had deviated from the oral extempore judgment and in any event as per The Partners of Haxby Practice v Collen [2012] UKEAT/0120/12/DM (Underhill P), and Ministry of Justice v Blackford [2018] IRLR 688 (Lady Wise), the written reasons prevailed over the oral reasons.
The Tribunal did not err in concluding that the Claimant had a contract of employment only with the proposed Second Respondent and that he did not have dual employment contract with two different employers (the First Respondent and proposed Second Respondent) for the same job and work. There was no reason to deviate from the principle that one person cannot have two employers in respect of the same employment on the facts of this case. The line of authorities from Laugher v Pointer (1826) 5 B and C 547 to Cairns v Visteon UK Ltd [2007] ICR 616 followed.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0286 – 18 – 1309

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.650895