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 >> Ewen v British Gas Plc [1991] UKEAT 513_91_0611 (6 November 1991)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1991/513_91_0611.html
Cite as: [1991] UKEAT 513_91_611, [1991] UKEAT 513_91_0611
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MISS J W COLLERSON
MR S M SPRINGER MBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
INTERLOCUTORY
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant Appellant in person
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an Interlocutory Appeal by Mr Ewen from a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Leicester on 8 July of this year under the Chairmanship of Mr Macmillan.
The issue before the Tribunal on that occasion was whether the whole of the case which Mr Ewan was bringing against his former employers, British Gas, should be heard "in camera". The Originating Application is dated 12 February 1991 in which Mr Ewen claims a redundancy payment associated with unfair constructive dismissal. The way in which the matter has been put and explained to us by Mr Ewen during the hearing of this Appeal is that he is alleging constructive dismissal and the fundamental breach of the Contract of Employment which he will allege to have amounted to a repudiation by British Gas, is that the substance of his post was removed from him so that his responsibilities were down graded to the extent that he felt it impossible to continue, and he resigned by taking early retirement.
He pointed out that he might wish to draw comparisons with some six other employees of British Gas. Four of them are existing employees, one has retired on medical grounds and one is now deceased; he died in service. During his submissions to us he pointed out that so far as the four existing employees were concerned there was no problem of confidentiality. However, there might be some question of confidentiality in relation to the employee who retired on medical grounds and the man who is dead and who died of a particular condition.
The position as we have explained to Mr Ewen, is that it is always possible for a Tribunal during the course of a hearing to decide on a particular issue or about a particular matter, that it would be in the interests of everybody if the Tribunal went into camera for a short while. That is a matter for its discretion. It is a decision which is rarely exercised for the reasons set out by the Learned Chairman in his Decision. Mr Ewen did not appreciate that the matter could be considered during the actual hearing of his case. He felt it had to be decided before the case started.
In the light of our emphasis to him that the matter can always be reconsidered at any juncture, he felt that the Appeal to this Court was not essential and we have understood him therefore not to press it further. However, he did wish us to give him some guidance and help in the way that this matter might be continued. The future conduct of the hearing is essentially a matter for the Learned Chairman and the Tribunal who will hear it. However, it may be, and this is a matter for the Learned Chairman, that a hearing for Directions in Chambers is the most convenient way of analysing the issues which we confess we found difficult to analyse in detail from the pleadings as they exist at the moment.
The case presented to us is slightly different from that presented to the Learned Chairman and it may be that the following issues will need to be considered at that hearing in Chambers. First of all the detailed presentation of Mr Ewen's case by way of Particulars, so that it is clear precisely how he is putting his case and what comparisons he wishes to make and with whom. In that connection it may be that the existing employees can be named because there are no problems of confidentiality. If in fact there are problems of confidentiality in respect of the member retired on medical grounds and/or the deceased member, then it is always possible to describe them in the documentation as Mr X or Mr Y. That is entirely a matter for the Learned Chairman.
It may also be possible in connection with each or all of the comparators, to have agreed Statements of Fact. Those proposed statements of fact may be agreed by British Gas or not. If there are any issues of fact no doubt they can be resolved by a reference to the files and if they are confidential then under the procedure suggested formally by this Court the Learned Chairman himself can look at the files and can help to set out the facts for use at the hearing. Lastly no doubt the Learned Chairman will need to consider whether any discovery is necessary and give orders about the preparation of bundles of documents for use at the hearing.
Having explained the possibilities of that procedure to Mr Ewen he was content and was grateful for the information. So in this Appeal we are quite satisfied that there was no error in the reasoning of the Learned Chairman on the application before him, which was that the whole hearing should be "in camera" was properly exercised. We can find no fault with it in any way and this Appeal will be dismissed.