BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Seawise Insurance Consultants Ltd v Day [1995] UKEAT 298_93_3101 (31 January 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/298_93_3101.html Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 298_93_3101 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MS S R CORBY
MR J C RAMSAY
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR M LANE
(Of Counsel)
Messrs Bates Wells & Braithwaite
Solicitors
27 Friars Street
Sudbury
Suffolk
CO10 6AD
For the Respondents MISS L CHUDLEIGH
(Of Counsel)
M A Hampshire
Solicitor
38 Church Road
Wickham Bishops
Witham
Essex
CM8 3JZ
JUDGE LEVY QC: Having seen Miss Chudleigh's skeleton argument and Mr Lane who appears for the Appellants in this appeal, seeks to add to a Notice of Appeal, from which several paragraphs have been omitted(?) (he tells us he is not going to rely on today) a paragraph which reads as follows:
"(12) The Tribunal failed, save by way of the reference at paragraph 29 of the Full Reasons, to make findings of fact in respect of the allegations".
In debate Mr Lane said it is necessary to be added to the typed script sent to us in advance set out in the Appellants' Further and Better Particulars of 13 November 1992 given in reply to the Respondent's request of 1 September 1992.
Miss Chudleigh has objected to that amendment being allowed because of the lateness of the hour in which it was made and, I think, because we do not have any notes of evidence and none have been requested.
We see the force of Miss Chudleigh's submissions. So far as the first is concerned, we do not think it disadvantages her. So far as the second is concerned, if and so far as it does disadvantage her, that is a matter which will no doubt be developed in the course of her submissions to us in due course.
It is right we think, that they should have all the matters of which the Appellants' claim before us on the hearing of the appeal and despite the lateness of the application we propose to allow the amendment.
