United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 346_95_2510

Appeal No. EAT/346/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 25 October 1995

HIS HONOUR JUDGE J HULL QC

MR D A C LAMBERT

MR T C THOMAS CBE

---

MR J F ELMER          APPELLANT

BETTS PLASTICS          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant IN PERSON


 


JUDGE HULL QC: We are prepared to allow this application to proceed to a full hearing. The appeal will therefore proceed. We are not prepared to accede to the application to appeal in respect of new evidence, there is no case shown to us on which new evidence could be admitted in this case.

That leaves the points raised in the Notice of Appeal other than new evidence and in particular, the point which has been explained to us by Mr Elmer himself, that is to say paragraph 8 of his Notice of Appeal, which, by reference to the Notice of Appearance and what is said by the Industrial Tribunal in their decision, appears to be plainly to be arguable although it will not be possible to see the merits of that argument and whether, in fact, it adds up to a substantial argument until the evidence is before us.

It also leaves the allegation of bias against the Chairman. We have received a circumstantial letter from the Chairman and we have received an affidavit from Mr Elmer. We have already explained to Mr Elmer that such a serious charge is not one which, in our view, could possibly be seriously entertained without the evidence of the legal representatives who were present and who would be expected, if any such thing had been going on, to have objected to it at the time and most certainly now to support this appeal, if they feel able to do so. If of course, they take a different view, that will be that.

Also, of course, it may be a matter (depending on how the matter is put) where it will be necessary for the industrial members of the Tribunal to make statements. That is a matter which we leave to the preparation of the appeal. Suffice it to say that we have at the moment no reason whatever, apart from what Mr Elmer has told us, to doubt the learned Chairman's highly circumstantial letter and, as I say, unless further evidence is adduced about that, it appears exceedingly unlikely that any appeal can succeed.

In those circumstances, there will be no leave to argue the case on fresh evidence, but there is leave to proceed on the other matters raised in your Notice of Appeal. So, in due course, you will attend an appeal at which the Respondents are represented (we would expect them to be represented) and all the other matters will be gone into.