The ET ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to determine an issue of contractual interpretation in a claim under part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The decision was upheld by the EAT (read the judgment here. The Claimant appealed.

The Court of Appeal ruled that permission to appeal should be given and the appeal should be allowed, with the result that the case will have to be remitted to the Employment Tribunal for determination of the substantive issues. In short, the court believed that the EAT was wrong to hold that the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine an issue of contractual interpretation in a claim under part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, for essentially the reasons given by HH Judge Richardson in Weatherilt and by HH Judge Hand QC in Tyne and Wear.