Agarwal v Cardiff University & Anor

In a claim under Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Employment Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine a relevant issue of contractual interpretation. An Employment Appeal Tribunal errs in holding otherwise. A jurisdictional point may be raised in the Court of Appeal where the way the case was argued below does not preclude it.

The appellant appealed from a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, before Slade J. The EAT had held that the Employment Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine an issue of contractual interpretation arising in a claim under Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Court of Appeal also considered the related case of Tyne and Wear. The central issues were whether the jurisdictional point could be raised on appeal and whether the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the contractual interpretation issue.

1. Disposition. Permission to appeal was granted. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the Employment Tribunal for determination of the substantive issues.
2. Jurisdiction. The EAT was wrong to hold that an Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine an issue of contractual interpretation in a claim under Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Court reached that conclusion for essentially the reasons given by HH Judge Richardson in Weatherilt and HH Judge Hand QC in Tyne and Wear.
3. Point raised on appeal. The way the case had been argued before the Employment Tribunal and the EAT did not prevent the appellant from raising the jurisdictional point in the Court of Appeal.
4. Related proceedings. The ruling disposed of one of the two issues in Tyne and Wear. The Court reserved its decision on the substantive issue heard provisionally. Full reasons were to follow, the Court considering that the issue might affect pending cases.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Permission to appeal granted; appeal allowed; the case remitted to the Employment Tribunal for determination of the substantive issues.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal (Slade J) — Held that the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine an issue of contractual interpretation in the Part 2 claim. The citation is not stated in the judgment.