Inland Revenue v. Ainsworth & Ors

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS At the Tribunal On 4 February 2004 Before

COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE APPELLANT 1) MR K AINSWORTH 2) MRS S KILIC 3) MRS C O STRINGER 4) MR M THWAITES RESPONDENT

Thirdly, I have certainly conceded and I do not resile from that, I could not say that any of these issues are per incuriam, whether I would say that they were not manifestly wrong perhaps depends on the meaning one gives to that case, but I would not want it to be thought that I did not say that all three decisions, perhaps in slightly different ways, Kigass , perhaps less than the other two, were seriously wrong, but manifestly wrong is perhaps a term of art in this field, and not very different from per incuriam, and in that sense I am perfectly willing to make that concession.

Lastly, yes, just the first thing that you said Sir, that there was said to be in one of the cases, I think it was Mrs Stringer's case, there was said to be a factual error, I have not had a chance to check whether that is so, if it is then of course we will agree. I think the point at issue frankly is not material either way, but I just did not want it to be thought that I had accepted that it was in error.

Sir, we of course have no objection to the Regulation 13 case. As regards all the points being raised in both Skeletons, before the Court of Appeal I will wish to say the List Design point in Ainsworth is academic. I am not suggesting Mr Underhill cannot run the argument, but we will wish to say that there is no factual matrix against which to test it.