The claimant faced a finding that the Industrial Tribunal did not have jurisdiction. He sought leave to appeal to establish by another route under Schedule 13, the necessary continuity of employment under Section 64(1)(a).
Held: Continuity of employment, and therefore the qualifying period for a claim, is a question of jurisdiction. Knox J said: ‘We have come to the conclusion that the statement to be found in House is not to be construed as meaning that any and every point on jurisdiction, whether or not it may involve the adducing of further evidence, can be taken at any stage in the proceedings. For that in our view would be much too wide a principle. In each case in our view, the Court has to decide on balance whether justice requires that the new point should be allowed to be taken’.
The case of House was not one where the Industrial Tribunal had accepted jurisdiction when they had no jurisdiction to do so, and ‘As to that there can, in our view, be no doubt at all, but that the point can be argued before the Appeal Tribunal’.
Judges:
Knox J
Citations:
[1989] ICR 629
Statutes:
Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – House v Emmerson Electric Industrial Controls EAT 1980
An unsuccessful Applicant sought leave to argue a jurisdictional point which he had not raised at the hearing before the Industrial Tribunal.
Held: Talbot J allowed the point to be raised saying: ‘For instance, if an Industrial Tribunal had . .
Cited by:
Cited – Leicester University Students Union v Mahomed EAT 6-Dec-1994
The Union appealed a finding of unfair dismissal and discrimination. It denied that she had sufficient continuous service, saying that the peirod suggested involved working for two employers. It also said that since the objection went as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.270359
