[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hereford & Worcester County Council v Clayton & Ors [1995] UKEAT 692_95_1411 (14 November 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/692_95_1411.html Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 692_95_1411

[New search] [Help]

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 692_95_1411

Appeal No. EAT/692/95

EAT/693/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 14th November 1995

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MS S R CORBY

MISS A MACKIE OBE

---

EAT/692/95

HEREFORD & WORCESTER COUNTY COUNCIL          APPELLANTS

(1) MRS T CLAYTON
(2) GORDON JOHN PERKINS
(3) RONALD DOUGLAS EAST          RESPONDENTS

---

EAT/693/95

(1) GORDON JOHN PERKINS
(2) RONALD DOUGLAS EAST          APPELLANTS

(1) MRS T CLAYTON
(2) HEREFORD & WORCESTER COUNTY COUNCIL          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

MEETING FOR DIRECTIONS

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the 1st Appellants MISS I C OMAMBALA

(of Counsel)

Mr R K Yates

Director of Administrative & Legal Services

Hereford & Worcester County Council

County Hall

Spetchley Road

Worcester

WR5 2NP

For the 2nd Appellants MISS L CHUDLEIGH

(of Counsel)

Messrs T A Matthews

6 King Street

Hereford

HR4 9BS

For the Respondent MR D BEAN

(of Counsel)

Messrs Robin Thompson & Partners

2 Glasshouse Circus

Queensway

Birmingham

B4 7NR


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This a meeting for directions in relation to an appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Shrewsbury over a period of 23 days between 27th July 1994 and 22nd November 1994.

In 112 page decision, the Tribunal set out extended reasons for their unanimous decision that the applicant's claims against the three respondents for sex discrimination succeeded. The matter of remedies was adjourned to another date.

The respondents to the complaint, Hereford & Worcester County Council and two sub-officers Messrs Perkins and East, have appealed.

The matter first came before me on 21st July 1995 on an application for production of all the Chairman's notes. I made an order adjourning the application for Chairman's notes to the hearing of a meeting for directions before a full appeal Tribunal. I gave directions for affidavits in support of allegations of bias to be filed with the Appeal Tribunal within time limits and for those affidavits to be submitted to the Chairman and lay members of the Industrial Tribunal for their comments. I also gave a direction in relation to a letter from the Chief Fire Officer and a tape recording or a transcript to be produced, as referred to in the Notice of Appeal. I directed that skeleton arguments relating to the procedure for determining this appeal should be exchanged at a date prior to the hearing.

The hearing has taken place today. It has been a helpful exercise to hear from Miss Omambala on behalf of the County Council, Miss Chudleigh on behalf of Mr Perkins and Mr East, and Mr Bean on behalf of Mrs Clayton. There are various suggestions on how this appeal should proceed.

We do not think it necessary to explain in detail the rival submissions, or the reasons for the conclusions we have reached. If a request is made for fuller reasons they can be given later. The important thing is to give the directions and get on with the hearing of the appeal.

The directions we give are these:

First, all the matters raised in the Notices of Appeal and in the respondent's answer are to be argued at one hearing. After hearing argument and virtual unanimity on the part of Counsel, that a full hearing of all issues was necessary, subject to other points which I will mention in a moment, we agree that there is no satisfactory way in which certain points can be decided at a separate hearing ahead of other points in the appeal.

Secondly, we have dealt with the adjourned application for Chairman's notes. We refuse to order production of those notes now. We adjourn the application for Chairman's notes to the hearing of the appeal. We would indicate now that, from the argument we have heard, we think it unlikely that we will come to the conclusion during the hearing of the appeal that it is necessary to have the notes in order to decide the appeal. But in case we should change our view on that, we adjourn the application to the full hearing. If we are persuaded that there is any part of the appeal on which it is necessary to have the Chairman's notes in order to make a decision, we will be able to request those notes and adjourn the hearing of the appeal for those to be obtained.

Thirdly, in relation to the allegations of bias, the only direction we make is that we grant leave for a affidavit to be sworn and served by Anna Fletcher (it is a second affidavit) dealing the comments made by the Chairman and lay members of the Tribunal and an affidavit put in by the solicitor for Mrs Clayton. We would record here that Mr Bean has objected to the lateness of the affidavit served on him in draft. He does not accept that what is in it has any relevance or weight to the issue of bias, but he does not object to it going in. We have not heard full argument on the bias point. The only thing we think it proper to say is that Mr Bean, on behalf of Mrs Clayton, has made a number of points about the nature of this complaint, which may be relevant to an application he may make at a later date for costs against the appellants. He will submit that the bias complaint, in view of the comments obtained from the Chairman and the two lay members, is one which it is not reasonable to pursue on this appeal. The wording of Rule 34 is relevant to how this bias allegation may subsequently be viewed by this Tribunal.

Fourthly, we stand over to the full hearing Mr Bean's application to strike out parts of the appeal dealing with the bias and perversity allegations. The reason for that is that we think that it is only justifiable to entertain that application now if it is likely to lead to a saving of time and costs. We do not think it will. If Mr Bean pursued his application today and we heard full arguments from all sides, there is a high risk that the application would turn into a hearing of the appeal on those points. It would be better for all the arguments on the appeal to be heard together as already indicated. While reserving his position that parts he wishes to strike out are hopeless appeals, because they raise no point of law, Mr Bean did not raise any substantial objection to us taking a course of standing over the applications. The reason we stand them over is that more time and costs are likely to be saved by dealing with that at the full hearing than now.

Fifthly, we will set aside two days for the hearing of this appeal. Our present view is that that should be sufficient in which to deal with all the points, particularly, as we shall direct that the full appeal will be heard by the Tribunal constituted as at today. We have read all the papers that have been so far served on the Tribunal, the decision, the appeal, the affidavits. We will be able, when we hear the appeal, to get to the real nub of the legal argument quicker than any other Tribunal would. If two days turns out to be an underestimate, we can adjourn it part-heard to be completed on another day.

The final point is one on which we do not make a direction. We make an observation. Today, as on 21st July 1995, the County Council and the two individual appellants have been separately represented by Counsel and solicitors. Nothing that we have heard has persuaded us that this would be justified at the full hearing of the appeal. If the appeal is to proceed, our indication is that, unless we receive persuasive representations to the contrary, the appeal should be presented by one Counsel, or if two Counsel are to be instructed, by two Counsel acting together for the appellants, so as to ensure that there is no unnecessary repetition of arguments. We do not think it is justified to have separate representation entailing the consequence that each appellant may wish to present their own points of view on the same points in the case. It is a matter for the appellants to decide who they instruct, and how they instruct them. But, as far as this Tribunal is concerned, we would regard it as an unreasonable use of our time to have separate representation. We have not heard anything that persuades us that that is necessary for the effective presentation of the appellants' case.

We direct that skeleton arguments be exchanged and lodged with this Tribunal at least 28 days before the date fixed for the full hearing.