Employment

O'Mara v. Postworth T/s NCS)

[2000] UKEAT 1230_99_0902Employment Appeal Tribunal2000

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Employment cases →

Get the AI brief for this case

Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS At the Tribunal On 9 February 2000 Before

MR JUSTICE CHARLES : The parties to this appeal which comes before us today by way of Preliminary Hearing are a Mr O'Mara and a Company called Postworth Limited.

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Full judgment transcript

BAILII · Verbatim mirror

MR JUSTICE CHARLES: The parties to this appeal which comes before us today by way of Preliminary Hearing are a Mr O'Mara and a Company called Postworth Limited.

The appeal is against a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Woburn Place (Stratford), the Extended Reasons for which were sent to the parties on 2 August 1999.

We have had the benefit of a professionally and clearly drafted Notice of Appeal and a summary of issues. In our view this case raises points that are reasonably arguable. We say now that on a preliminary look some of them seem more reasonably arguable than others. In particular, we have in mind as a point that gives rise to points of law that are reasonably arguable is the relationship between Postworth and Tarmac and the knock-on effect that has as to the need for mutuality and control.

At this stage we think it better to say nothing else as to the merits of the case other than to indicate that we will permit all of the grounds raised in the Notice of Appeal to proceed to a full hearing.

A point raised before us is that there is another case called Greenaway which also involves Postworth Ltd and, as we understand it, a decision of an Employment Tribunal which is the opposite to the decision in this case. What we propose to do so far as that is concerned is to take up the line suggested, by Mr O'Mara's representatives, that they would write to Postworth to see whether a procedure for both appeals can be agreed between the parties to them.

It seems to us at present that it would be sensible that the appeals, if not consolidated, be listed before and be dealt with by the same Tribunal. What we will therefore do is direct that, if an agreed procedure for the two appeals is not reached and put into effect by the Registrar that both appeals be listed for a Directions Hearing before the same Judge of this Tribunal. That Directions Hearing not to take place within the next 28 days but to take place as soon as practical thereafter.

We give this appeal Category B and a time estimate of one day, but indicate that we think if both appeals come on together they are unlikely to take longer than a day, given the overlap of points.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More Employment cases

Alpha Anne and Ors v Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust

[2026] EAT 15

A v B, the Organisation & Ors

[2026] EAT 35

Prasad v Epsom and St Helier Hospital NHS Trust & Anor (Whistleblowing, Protected Disclosures, Race and Sex Discrimination, Victimisation)

[2026] UKEAT 22

H Fullah v Medical Research Council & Ors

[2026] EAT 28

Sita Rama Swamy Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems Limited

[2026] EAT 49

D Harding v St George's University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

[2026] EAT 2

Common Room

Discussion

0 comments · About the Common Room →

No comments yet — start the discussion.

Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.