[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Swindells& Anor v Pearson [1995] UKEAT 1248_94_2610 (26 October 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/1248_94_2610.html Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 1248_94_2610

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 1248_94_2610

Appeal No. EAT/1248/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 26 October 1995

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY

MR A D SCOTT

MRS P TURNER OBE

---

(1) MR C SWINDELLS

(2) BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC          APPELLANTS

MISS S PEARSON          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants (1st & 2nd) MISS R DOWNING

(Of Counsel)

MR K W POTTER

BT Group Legal Services

British Telecom Plc

81 Newgate Street

London EC1A 7AJ

For the Respondent MR DECLAN O'DEMPSEY

(Of Counsel)

Lawford & Co

Solicitors

102-104 Sheen Road

Richmond

Surrey

TW9 1UF


 


MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: This matter comes on for appeal today and at the outset Miss Downing, who represents the Appellants, has applied for an order for the Notes of Evidence of the Chairman from the Industrial Tribunal, coupled with an application to adjourn the hearing of the appeal. We are concerned about the circumstances that have arisen in this case. The Respondent's Notice of Appearance going back to 28 February 1995 indicated that the Notes of Evidence would be required. As always, this appeal has taken some time to come on. Some weeks ago the parties were sent copies of the Employment Appeal Tribunal's bundle and it seems that very soon after perusing that, and after seeking Miss Downing's advice, the Appellants wrote to the Registrar on 6 October requesting an order for production of the Notes of Evidence, and itemising the grounds upon which that request was made. The papers were placed before the President of E.A.T. on 10 October. He, rightly and inevitably, formed the view that if he were to make the order at that time, the Notes of Evidence would not have been retrieved and transcribed in time for today, and understandably thought it appropriate to leave the matter in the list, to see whether the appeal could proceed without them, either wholly or in part.

The letter that was sent by the Registrar to the Appellants stated that the President had directed that the application be adjourned until today and it is today that it has been renewed. It seems to us that almost all of the submissions that are outlined in the Appellant's Skeleton Argument depend, at least in part, on unresolved matters of evidence. By unresolved, we mean matters as to which there is some dispute as to whether or not the Tribunal acted perversely in making some of its findings. With considerable reluctance we have come to the conclusion that it is not going to be possible to do justice to this appeal without the Notes of Evidence. The Respondents take the same view. Clearly the Respondent has an interest in the matter being resolved as soon as possible and we are sympathetic to that. The most that can be said on behalf of the Respondent today is that they can adopt what Mr O'Dempsey has colourfully described as a position of "studious neutrality". They can hardly go further in view of what they have said in their original Notice of Appearance.

In all those circumstances, and with some regret, we are going to accede to the application for an order for the Chairman's Notes, and adjourn the matter to be re-fixed. We observe that the original hearing took place over two days, divided by about nine months. It is always a burden on the Industrial Tribunals to produce these Notes of Evidence and we have wondered whether it is necessary for the order to apply to the whole proceedings or a specific part of the proceedings. We invite Counsels' representations on that. What I propose to do is to fix the hearing for 16 January subject to any problems that either of you may have. Application for costs are refused.