[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Defence Evaluation and Research Agency ("Dera") v. Dr R A Lee [2000] UKEAT 944_00_1412 (14 December 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/944_00_1412.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 944__1412, [2000] UKEAT 944_00_1412

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR SAM NEAMAN (Of Counsel) Instructed by Messrs Cameron McKenna Solicitors Mitre House 160 Aldersgate Street London EC1A 4DD


 


JUDGE LEVY

1. We have an Appeal this morning before us by Defence Evaluation and Research Agency ("DERA") the Appellant following a promulgation by an Employment Tribunal of a decision on 16 June 1999. Their decision ran to some 190 pages following a 31 day hearing and a large number of decision meetings. The unanimous conclusion of the decision was that the Applicant's Equal Pay claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the Applicant and her claims for indirect sex discrimination and breach of contract failed and dismissed.
2. A majority decision held that the Applicant's claim for sex discrimination and victimisation succeeded and there was a direction for a remedy hearing. From that decision a Notice of Appeal dated 28 July 2000 was lodged for the purposes of this Preliminary Hearing of the hearing, Mr Neaman who appeared below has produced for us a Skeleton Argument of some 42 pages outlining the grounds of appeal and the reasons why those grounds are arguable.
3. Having pre read those skeleton arguments we were satisfied that the matter should go to a full hearing for this Preliminary Hearing because there is a cross appeal on a different aspect to the case. There was a representative of the Appellant in the Court and that I think has made it easier for us to give certain directions.
4. It is apparent that some evidence will need to be before the Tribunal hearing the Appeal. We have suggested understand that, this has been acceptable to both parties that the Appellant should identify the notes of evidence which it requires and the reasons why they are required and its notes of such evidence to the Respondents by the end of January, and by the end of February the Respondents should inform the Appellants whether they agree the notes of evidence with or without amendment.
5. If there can be an agreement then there will be no need to approach the Chairman for his notes of evidence. If there cannot be the agreement the Chairman should be approached. It would be desirable that the notes of evidence sought from the Chairman be kept to as small a scale as possible, particularly having regard to the length of the hearing and the work that production of such notes will cause to the Chairman .
6. We suggested that it would be helpful to the Panel hearing the full Appeal if a chronology could be produced, preferably agreed, but that if one cannot be agreed one should be produced by each party. The timing of the Appeal is estimated to be 2½ - 3 days. Given the body of paper we think it would be sensible to put an estimate of 3 days for the Appeal. Category A.