Agarwal v Cardiff University & Anor

The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant permission to appeal and allowed the appeal, holding that the Employment Appeal Tribunal was wrong to conclude that the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine an issue of contractual interpretation in a claim brought under Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The court relied on the reasoning of HH Judge Richardson in Weatherilt and HH Judge Hand QC in Tyne and Wear as supporting authority for the existence of such jurisdiction. The matter was remitted to the Employment Tribunal for determination of the substantive issues; the Court reserved its decision on the substantive point it had provisionally heard.

Background and parties:

• The appellant, Agarwal, appealed against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (Slade J) in a dispute with Cardiff University and another respondent.
• The claim arises under Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Employment Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine an issue of contractual interpretation within that claim.

Procedural posture:

• The appeal came to the Court of Appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The Court of Appeal provided a short-form decision and indicated fuller reasons would follow.

Nature of the relief sought (i):

• Not stated in the judgment. The Court considered whether the Employment Tribunal may determine issues of contractual interpretation in a Part 2 ERA 1996 claim; the practical relief effected by the Court was permission to appeal and remittal of the case to the Employment Tribunal.

Issues framed by the court (ii):

• Whether the Employment Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide issues of contractual interpretation in claims under Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
• Whether it was open to the appellant to raise the point in the Court of Appeal given the manner in which the case was argued before the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
• Substantive issue heard provisionally by the court was reserved for later decision.

Court’s reasoning and decision (iii):

• The Court concluded that the Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in law in holding that the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine contractual interpretation in a Part 2 claim. That conclusion followed essentially for the reasons given by HH Judge Richardson in Weatherilt and by HH Judge Hand QC in Tyne and Wear, which the Court treated as positively instructive.
• The Court held that the way the case had been argued below did not preclude the appellant from raising the jurisdictional point before the Court of Appeal.
• As a result, permission to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed and the proceedings were remitted to the Employment Tribunal for determination of the substantive issues; the Court reserved its decision on the substantive issue it had provisionally considered. Fuller reasons were to be handed down subsequently.

Appeal allowed; permission to appeal granted. The Court held that the Employment Appeal Tribunal was wrong to find that the Employment Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine issues of contractual interpretation in a claim under Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, for reasons consistent with Weatherilt (HH Judge Richardson) and Tyne and Wear (HH Judge Hand QC). The case was remitted to the Employment Tribunal for determination of the substantive issues; the Court reserved its substantive decision.

Appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (Slade J), which had held that the Employment Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine contractual interpretation in a Part 2 ERA 1996 claim. The Court of Appeal [2018] EWCA Civ 1434 granted permission to appeal, allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the Employment Tribunal for determination of the substantive issues.