[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Malik v. Eaglesfield School [2002] UKEAT 1237_01_1801 (18 January 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1237_01_1801.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1237_1_1801, [2002] UKEAT 1237_01_1801

[New search] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MISS M MONDAY (of Counsel) Instructed by: Plumstead Community Law Centre 105 Plumstead High Street Plumstead London SE18 1SB


 


MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC

1. We have been persuaded by the submissions of Miss Monday that there may just be an arguable case here which justifies the attendance of the Respondents in an attempt to rebut it. We do so in particular because we think that there may be some force in the suggestion that the Tribunal came to a surprising conclusion in relation to whether or not the panel were influenced or not by Mr Collins' comments adverse to the candidacy of the Appellant.
2. That requires an examination of how the Tribunal dealt with Mr Collins and whether they may not, perhaps, have been over-emphatic in some of the points which they made in favour of the Respondents and failed to conduct the sort of analysis which this type of case would require.
3. We express no concluded view, we must emphasise, about the chances of success of these submissions; we merely record that we think the case is arguable. We consider it is arguable upon the basis set out in the Skeleton Argument which we have from Miss Monday, and propose to give permission on that basis. We think the case should take no more than half a day to argue, that we would wish Skeleton Arguments to be supplied no later than seven days prior to the hearing, together with photocopies of any authorities which are to be relied upon.
4. Miss Monday has asserted, in support of her application for Chairman's Notes of Evidence that part of her Skeleton Argument, which forms the basis of her appeal, is unsupported by anything other than her own personal recollection of the hearing. That is where she says, at paragraph 5 (b), that Mr Collins gave evidence to the Employment Tribunal that he had intervened during the decision making process, in respect of one of the candidates, Mr Pattenden, who was successful, in order to allay particular concerns of the panel in respect of that candidate.
5. It seems to us that that evidence is material if it was given. It is a discrete point. It seems to us that the Respondents should be asked whether they accept that that evidence was given. If they do not accept that it was, then we order the Chairman's notes of the evidence of Mr Collins, restricted to that witness, be made available.
6. If the Respondents, however, confirm that evidence or something to that effect that was said, there will be no need to trouble the Chairman for his notes and we would decline to make such an Order.
7. So the process, we think, should be this: that we shall leave it to the good offices of Miss Monday and those who instruct her, to see if agreement from the Respondents may be secured. Failing that, application may be made to the Registrar here who, in accordance with our directions, will then order the Chairman's notes to be supplied.