Article 94(1) of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003 states:

"An appeal on a question of law shall lie from a decision or order of the Tribunal to the Royal Court with the leave of the Tribunal or of the Royal Court."

I.e. A party who wishes to appeal a decision of the Tribunal may only do so on a question of law. The appeal is to the Royal Court and appeals may only be brought with the leave of either the Tribunal or the Royal Court.

The appeal procedure was confirmed in Luxicabs v Baal (2011) JRC 072. Baal had brought a claim for unfair dismissal against Luxicabs in the Tribunal. The Tribunal found in favour of Baal and ordered Luxicabs to pay unfair dismissal compensation. When Luxicabs failed to pay the compensation due, proceedings were issued in the Petty Debts Court to enforce the Tribunal's judgment.

In the Petty Debts Court, Luxicabs indicated dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Tribunal process. However the Petty Debts Court confirmed that it had no jurisdiction to deal with appeals against decisions of the Tribunal and accordingly it granted judgment against Luxicabs.

Luxicabs then appealed the decision of the Petty Debts Court. On appeal Luxicabs argued that (a) the Tribunal was wrong in upholding Baal's claim for unfair dismissal and (b) it was entitled to a full hearing on the merits of the case before the Petty Debts Court.

In relation to (a), the Royal Court held that the fact that a party to Tribunal proceedings considers the Tribunal's assessment of the facts to be wrong does not give rise to an appeal because an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal may be brought on a point of law only. On (b), the Royal Court held that Article 94 provides that an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal can only be made to the Royal Court: the Petty Debts Court has no jurisdiction in this regard. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Comment: Tribunal processes - no recording of evidence

In its judgment the Royal Court observed that:

"…it is very unsatisfactory that the evidence before the Tribunal is not recorded. It means that there is no record of the evidence for the purpose of any appeal under Article 94(1). This seems very prejudicial to a party who may well have an arguable appeal but cannot prove it because there is no record of the evidence. We urge that provision be made for proceedings to be recorded in future".