Soteriou v Ultrachem Ltd & Ors

Permission to appeal against the limitation of an Employment Appeal Tribunal appeal was refused. The applicant had lost no substantive issue: the EAT had allowed his challenge to the illegality ruling to proceed to a full hearing. The proper focus was whether the employee was implicated in the illegal purposes of the employment contract, not the depth or quality of the employers’ illegality. The EAT could receive further evidence or remit matters to the Employment Tribunal. A further appeal would delay the pending EAT proceedings without yielding a practical benefit.

The applicant brought Employment Tribunal proceedings for unfair dismissal after his contractual relationship with the respondent companies ended. The respondents raised only whether he had been employed and whether illegality in the contract of service prevented recovery. The Employment Tribunal found that he had been employed, at least latterly, but held that the contract was tainted by illegality. The applicant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which considered the matter unsuitable for summary dismissal and allowed it to proceed to a full hearing. He sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the limitation of the issues. The central question was whether that limitation caused him any legally material disadvantage.

Lord Justice Sedley refused the application for permission to appeal.

1. The proposed appeal concerned only the limitation of the issues before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. It did not challenge the EAT’s decision that the applicant’s appeal should proceed to a full hearing. The applicant therefore had lost no substantive opportunity.
2. The Employment Tribunal’s finding that the applicant had been employed, at least latterly, was not under appeal. The material issue remaining before the EAT was whether the employment contract was affected by illegality so as to prevent the applicant recovering in proceedings upon it.
3. The relevant inquiry concerned the applicant’s implication in the illegal purposes of the contract. It did not require investigation of the depth or quality of the respondents’ own unlawful activity.
4. If further evidence was relevant and necessary, the EAT had power to receive it or to remit the matter to the Employment Tribunal for that purpose. The applicant could therefore raise any properly relevant evidential issue before the EAT.
5. A further appeal would substantially delay the EAT proceedings and provide no practical benefit. Permission was accordingly refused. A transcript was to be provided to the applicant at public expense.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Refused permission to appeal against the limitation of the issues before the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Under Lindsay J, declined to dispose of the applicant’s appeal summarily and allowed it to proceed to a full hearing.
• Employment Tribunal: Found that the applicant had been employed, at least latterly, but held that the contract of employment was tainted by illegality.