[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Medran Developments Ltd v. Haworth [2001] UKEAT 428_01_0305 (3 May 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/428_01_0305.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 428_01_0305, [2001] UKEAT 428_1_305

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR G ALLIOTT (of Counsel) Instructed By: Dr S Mireskandari Messrs Tehrani & Co Solicitors 21 Gloucester Place London W1H 3PB


 


MR JUSTICE CHARLES

1. We have before us a preliminary hearing in an appeal brought by a company called Medran Developments Ltd. The Respondents to the appeal is a Mr Haworth.
2. Medran were the Respondent at the Employment Tribunal and they appeal against a decision, the Extended Reasons for which were sent to the parties on 19 February 2001. The decision was that:

"(i) The Respondents [Medran] answer and counter-claim be struck out, and Medran be debarred from defending these proceedings.

(ii) That the Respondents be ordered to pay the Applicant's costs on the standard basis from 22 September 2000 up to and including the date of this hearing; to be assessed if not agreed.

(iii) The matter be adjourned until 4 May before the same Tribunal for a further hearing on merits."

3. Albeit that the appeal relates to exercises of discretion by the Employment Tribunal we are of the view that the professionally prepared Notice of Appeal, as expanded on by the skeleton argument that has been put in on behalf of the Respondent, clearly raises points of law that are reasonably arguable. We comment that on a preliminary read some of the points are better than others but that will be a matter for the Tribunal when it hears the appeal.
4. We will give permission therefore for this appeal to proceed to a full hearing. We give it Category B and a time estimate of a day.
5. We direct that the Chairman's notes of the hearing should be produced and we will give the following directions: (1) the Appellant, Medran, have liberty to put in a statement or statements of evidence as to the events at the hearing upon which they seek to rely and that is to be filed and served within 14 days from today (2) the Respondent to the Appeal, Mr Haworth, is to have liberty to respond to those statements within 14 days of their service upon him and (3) after the exchange of those statements the Chairman is to be invited to comment on them.