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 >> Walker v Capital Business Machines Ltd [1992] UKEAT 736_92_2910 (29 October 1992)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1992/736_92_2910.html
Cite as: [1992] UKEAT 736_92_2910
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KNOX
MR D G DAVIES
MR J A SCOULLER
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR G WALKER
Appearing in Person
For the Respondents MR A I HANNAH
(Solicitor)
Messrs Brachers
Somerfield House
59 London Road
Maidstone
Kent
MR JUSTICE KNOX: Mr Walker appeals from an order of the Industrial Tribunal at Bury St Edmunds which directed that he should produce, at a time and place to be agreed, but in default of agreement, at a particular time and place, certain tapes or transcripts of those tapes and that he should allow the Respondents, Capital Business Machines Ltd, his ex-employers, to inspect and peruse the documents so produced and to take copies and extracts therefrom at their expense.
This is a question of discovery and inspection. The tape is central to the issue between the parties which arises on Mr Walker's claim for unfair dismissal by Capital Business Machines Ltd. There is no doubt that the tape is highly relevant and equally that it is necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings for it to be produced, and Mr Walker does not suggest the contrary.
Equally we are satisfied that there is no question of any type of privilege attaching to the tape, nor has that been suggested to us. The issue really is that Mr Walker is, as he said in a letter which constitutes his Notice of Appeal:
"quite prepared to attend the hearing an hour earlier in order for them [the Respondents] to inspect the documents,"
but he is not willing to let them have it earlier because as he put it:
"this would allow too much time for people to think of excuses for what was said."
That, I fear, is not the basis on which litigation and proceedings before industrial tribunals are now conducted in this Country. If material is discoverable and liable to production it is liable to production in good time before the relevant hearing takes place for a variety of reasons. First, it is not the basis on which proceedings are conducted for surprises to be sprung. Secondly, if there is early discovery it may easily lead to settlement of the proceedings and save everybody costs. Thirdly, it is helpful in the expeditious disposition of the trial itself if the written material, in which I class a tape, or its transcript, is properly organised well before the hearing. If everybody turns up at the last minute with their own documents it leads to chaotic hearings and that in turn increases the costs of the proceedings. Those are the reasons behind the rule, the rule is undoubtedly in existence and this appeal is, I fear, a hopeless one and in those circumstances it will be dismissed.