Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Dixon v Derby Black Business Agency [1991] UKEAT 123_91_1607 (16 July 1991)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1991/123_91_1607.html
Cite as: [1991] UKEAT 123_91_1607
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MRS R CHAPMAN
MR G H WRIGHT MBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant Ms J DELAHUNTEY
(OF COUNSEL)
Messrs Robin Thompson & Partners
Solicitors
Price House
37 Stoney Street
The Lace Market
Nottingham
NG1 1NF
For the Respondents NO ATTENDANCE BY OR
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an Interlocutory Appeal which raises a difficult point of practice, which has not heretofore, come before this Court.
The Applicant was a Mrs Dixon, who alleged sexual discrimination against the Derby Black Business Agency. A Hearing took place before an Industrial Tribunal which lasted one day, and then was adjourned part-heard. At that Hearing the Applicant was represented by a trade union official, Mr Fell from NUPE and two witnesses were called.
It was apparent, after the adjournment, that this case was becoming too much for Mr Fell to handle and the Trade Union instructed Robin Thompson & Partners to act for the Applicant. The partner dealing with the matter then tried to discover from Mr Fell exactly what had happened. He had taken practically no notes and he had no statement from two of the witnesses he had called; it was apparent that the Applicant had been cross-examined for a very considerable period of time. The result was, therefore, that the partner was unable to instruct Counsel fully on the situation, or to appreciate precisely what matters had been raised; what matters were still in issue.
Now that Counsel has advised it is apparent that a good deal more evidence will be sought to be heard on behalf of the Applicant, not least on medical issues and that the case may therefore take on a rather different aspect from the initial opening. Indeed, there is no note by Mr Fell of the opening he made to the Industrial Tribunal.
Application was made by the Solicitors, to the learned Chairman for his Notes of the first day's Hearing, and they explained why the wanted it. They also asked for an opportunity of appearing with Counsel and addressing him. The reply ultimately from learned Chairman, through a letter from an Assistant Secretary, was that there was no obligation to provide the copy of his notes before the hearing of the case is concluded, and that they were there only for the purposes of assisting the Tribunal. That is absolutely right. The only point that is raised before us as a query of the exercise of his discretion, is whether or not he can be in any way criticised for refusing even to hear submissions on the matter before him. In so refusing it seems to us that he did go outside the exercise of his discretion and we feel therefore that we ought to ask him to allow the Appeal and to ask him to listen to the application being made by Counsel for the Applicant.
When he does so, it seems to us that there a number of courses which will be open to him. He may decide that the matter should start afresh and that the costs "thrown away" should be paid by the Trade Union; it may be that he will decide that the Applicant should merely be recalled and that it would be convenient for him to provide some, or all of his notes of her evidence; it may be that he will indicate that only certain, perhaps the cross-examination, of the other two witnesses should be made available to the Applicant's Solicitors. All sorts of ways of dealing with this are open to him.
In the circumstances we do not propose to indicate in any way how we would deal with it because it is essentially a matter for the learned Chairman and those who sit with him, when they have seen and heard, the parties and it may be that Miss Delahuntey will put some documentation before him which may help to shorten the matter. Those are all matters for those involved but at the end of the day justice must be done, and if costs have been "thrown away" no doubt remedies can be dealt with through awards of costs, and this may well be one of the situations in which that is appropriate.
However, what matters is that justice should be done between the parties, that which is fair; just and reasonable in all the circumstances and that we leave in the capable hands of the learned Chairman.
So far as this Appeal is concerned, we merely allow it and remit the matter for the learned Chairman to hear the submissions and to give such directions as he and those sitting with him feel are justified in the circumstances and make such Order accordingly, we ask him to do this.