In the matter of an application by Darius Pearce

The applicant ("Mr Pearce") applies for leave to appeal against an interim decision of the Jersey Employment Tribunal ("the Tribunal") made on 30 th July, 2012, that he was the employer of Miss Kirsty Garcia ("Miss Garcia") who had filed a complaint of unfair dismissal against him.

Mr Pearce attended the application for leave before me with no papers at all. He was given time to return to his office to obtain the documents he wished to rely on for the purposes of his application and with the assistance of the Assistant Judicial Greffier a bundle of relevant papers was assembled.

Article 94 of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003 ("the Employment Law") provides that an appeal on a question of law only shall lie from a decision of the Tribunal to the Court with the leave of the Tribunal or of the Court. The Tribunal denied leave in this case.

It was held in Voisin-v-Brown [2007] JLR 141 at page 143 that an appeal on a question of law will arise where it can be shown that (a) the Tribunal had misdirected itself in law or misunderstood or misapplied the law; (b) there was no evidence to support a particular conclusion or finding of fact; or (c) the decision was either perverse, in that it was one which no reasonable tribunal directing itself properly on the law could have reached, or was obviously wrong.

The Tribunal wrote to Mr Pearce on 5 th April, 2012, notifying him of the receipt of the complaint brought by Miss Garcia and enclosing a copy of the complaint together with the employer's response form (JET2) for him to complete and guidance notes to assist him. For reasons that are not clear, the letter cites as the respondent "Darius Pearce Jewellers Limited" although the complaint itself makes no reference to any such entity.