United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 420_95_2105

Appeal No. EAT/420/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 21st May 1996

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BUTTERFIELD

LORD GLADWIN OF CLEE CBE JP

MISS C HOLROYD

---

MR N SHAW          APPELLANT

YORKSHIRE TELEVISION          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR SHAW

(in person)


 


MR JUSTICE BUTTERFIELD: The appellant, Mr Shaw, appeals against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at Leeds, which in a decision promulgated to the parties on 8th March 1995 rejected the appellant's complaint that he had been unfairly dismissed.

This matter comes before us by way of a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is any arguable ground raised in the Notice of Appeal which justifies the matter going forward to a full hearing. If there is no arguable point raised by the appellant, the matter is dismissed at this stage in order to save costs and convenience of the parties.

We have very carefully considered the grounds of appeal advanced by Mr Shaw in this case. I say at once that we have decided that this is a case in which we are prepared to grant Mr Shaw leave to appeal against the finding.

However, the leave is limited to the new evidence points which he has advanced before us today. We are particularly impressed by the point concerning the internal telephone directory which Mr Shaw asserts was prepared before he had left the employment of the respondents, but which excluded his name. The implication, says Mr Shaw, is that his internal disciplinary proceedings were in effect pre-judged by the respondents. That material was not available to the Industrial Tribunal. If Mr Shaw's factual assertions are correct, it seems to us that it is plainly arguable that that would have had a very important impact upon the tribunal's conclusions in relation to fairness of the internal disciplinary proceedings and the decision to dismiss him.

We also indicate that the appellant may have leave to pursue his arguments in relation to the two employees of the concern known as `Laughing Gravy'. We have considerably greater doubts about that aspect of the appeal, but we do give leave on that basis.

We take the view that the interests of justice require that these matters be ventilated in a full hearing at which the respondents will be represented. There may well be answers to the points raised by Mr Shaw, but we are not prepared to shut him out from an argument of this matter at a full hearing in due course.

To that extent, and to that extent only, the appeal will go forward to a full hearing.

We direct that the appellant swears and affidavit exhibiting the telephone directory and copies of the statements from the employees of "Laughing Gravy", setting out the circumstances in which he came into possession of those documents and why they were not available for use at the hearing. The affidavit must be filed within 42 days.