United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 50_95_1701

Appeal No. PA/50/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 17 January 1995

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D LEVY QC

MR S M SPRINGER MBE

MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP

---

SAVE & PROSPER GROUP LTD          APPELLANTS

MRS J BAKER JONES          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants MISS D ROSE

(of Counsel)

Messrs Simmons & Simmons

Solicitors

14 Dominion Street

London EC2M 2RJ

For the Respondent MR E G McCARTHY

(Solicitor)

Messrs McCarthy Robertson

Solicitors

Glenbrook House

11 Molesey Road

Hersham

Walton-on-Thames

Surrey KT12 4RH


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: With the consent of the parties and for their convenience, we are hearing an application for specific discovery this morning here in London rather than this application being heard by the Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal in Bristol.

Following the hearing before us on Friday, yesterday, 16 January 1995, Messrs McCarthy Robertson, solicitors for the Applicant, wrote a letter to Messrs Simmons & Simmons seeking further discovery on six numbered matters. So far as concerns requests numbered 3, 4 and 6, the Respondent has agreed to give such further discovery as is material within 10 days from today. So far as concerns requests numbered 1, 2 and 5, Mr McCarthy, on behalf of the Applicant, has submitted that the documents to which we have been referred during the hearing, show that there must be further relevant documents in the possession of the Company Respondent. Requests 1 and 2 relate to the documents showing how Mr Labrow and Mr Johnson ceased to be employees of the Company and the background to their departure from it. Mr McCarthy submits their departure and the reasons for it are relevant to the Applicant's case of Sexual Discrimination and seeks specific discovery of documents relevant to their departure. It is clear that one of the gentlemen was demoted and both left the company, one for financial misconduct, one for incompetence. Mr McCarthy's submission is that if they were dismissed that means that there must have been sexual discrimination in the way that they failed to refuse to address the complaints made by the Applicant which demanded an investigation in the short period during which she and they were in the Company's employ at the same time. There is an obvious lack of logic in that submission on which Miss Rose has addressed us. The fact they were incompetent or negligent in their duties does not mean that they behaved towards the defendant in a less favourable nature because of her sex and we accept Miss Rose's submission that, so far as each of those points are concerned, Mr McCarthy's request for specific discovery is ill founded.

So far as request 5 is concerned, this is asking the Respondent to create documents, a course which is inappropriate on discovery. This is, no doubt, something which will be covered in the questionnaire served by the Applicant, to which we understand an answer is now awaited. In the circumstances, we will make no order for specific discovery on this application.