Appeal No.	 EAT/629/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 22 October 1997

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
MR D A C LAMBERT
MR R H PHIPPS

CARISWAY CLEANING CONSULTANTS LTD	APPELLANTS

(1) MR P RICHARDS (2) COOPER CLEANING SERVICES	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR M WEST
(Senior Advocate)
Peninsula Business Services Ltd
361-365 Chapel Street
Manchester
M3 5JY	

	MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY:   This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Carisway Cleaning Consultants Ltd against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal at London (North). The hearing having been on 24th February 1997 and the decision sent to the parties on 21st March 1997.

	The issue was whether there had been a transfer of an undertaking pursuant to the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment Regulations 1981. The finding of the Industrial Tribunal was that there was no such transfer from Carisway Cleaning Consultants to Cooper Cleaning Services, who were the second respondents, and who succeeded Carisway as contract cleaners at Sainsbury’s Supermarket in Chesham.

	Mr West has submitted that there are points of law which are arguable and which he succinctly describes as being related either to inadequate reasons being given by the tribunal, or to the tribunal not having considered properly the matters required to be considered under the TUPE Regulations and the case law which exist under them.

	The case has caused us some concern. But, it seems to us, that the appeal points advanced by Mr West are arguable and that the matter should go to a full hearing. We say this, because although the Industrial Tribunal took and was almost certainly entitled to take a dim view of the appellants’ witness and the appellants’ motives about certain stages of the facts, there is a clear finding that Mr Richards did proceed to work for Cooper Cleaning Services for some five weeks after they succeeded to the contract at Chesham. In those circumstances, it seems to us, to be arguable that there is a point of law which Carisway can properly raise.

	In those circumstances, the appeal may go to a full hearing. Of course Mr Richards and Cooper Cleaning Services will remain parties to that appeal.