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 >> Oxford Polytechnic v Halpin [1993] UKEAT 148_92_1903 (19 March 1993)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/148_92_1903.html
Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 148_92_1903
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MR J P M BELL CBE
MRS P TURNER OBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
MEETING FOR DIRECTIONS
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Respondent THE RESPONDENT IN PERSON
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): Mr Andrew Halpin brought proceedings before an Industrial Tribunal against the Oxford Polytechnic. He also issued proceedings in the High Court in defamation against the Polytechnic and one other.
The matter came before this Court in May 1992. We ordered a stay of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal pending the solution of the High Court action. In order to save time we also ordered discovery in the Industrial Tribunal proceedings.
Mr Halpin now applies for further orders. In the first place he asks for an order that the documents obtained in Discovery in the Industrial Tribunal proceedings should be capable of being used in the High Court proceedings. That is entirely a matter for the High Court and we shall certainly make no order on that application.
Secondly, he asks for us to make some order giving him release from any implied undertaking that the documents disclosed in the Industrial Tribunal proceedings should not be used for collateral or ulterior purpose. That again is something about which we shall not make any order, it is entirely a matter for the High Court proceedings and can well be dealt with there.
Thirdly, he seeks an order for Further Discovery by affidavit in the Industrial proceedings. As we have already said those proceedings are stayed pending the outcome of the High Court proceedings and it will be wholly inappropriate at this juncture, having ordered a stay, to make any further order for discovery in those proceedings. So that third application is also refused.