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 >> Chilton v London Borough Of Richmond Upon Thames [1998] UKEAT 29_98_0807 (8 July 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/29_98_0807.html
Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 29_98_807, [1998] UKEAT 29_98_0807
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR R SANDERSON OBE
MISS S M WILSON
MR T CHILTON APPELLANT
LONDON BOROUGH OF RICHMOND UPON THAMES RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | MISS M MCCABE (Counsel for ELAAS) |
| For the Respondent |
JUDGE PETER CLARK: This is an appeal by Mr Chilton against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at London South, chaired by Mr G W Davis on 14 to 16 October 1997, dismissing his complaints of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination and, in part, his complaint of breach of contract. That decision with Extended Reasons was promulgated on 6 November 1997.
His Notice of Appeal takes a number of points. In particular, at paragraphs 2 to 7 he makes complaint as to the Industrial Tribunal's conduct of the proceedings below.
Paragraph 9 of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Practice Directions sets out the procedure to be followed on appeal where such complaints are made. Normally, the Registrar will direct that the complainant files affidavit evidence supporting such complaints when they appear in the Notice of Appeal.
Thereafter copies of the Notice of Appeal and affidavit evidence filed are sent to the Industrial Tribunal Chairman and, if appropriate, the lay members for their comments in order to provide the EAT at the preliminary hearing stage with a balanced picture.
No such direction has been sought or given in this case. It is, as Miss McCabe - who appears on behalf of the Appellant under the ELAAS scheme today - accepts, plainly necessary. Indeed, we see that the Respondent has specifically sought a direction for Chairman's and lay members' comments on the allegations in paragraphs 2 to 7 of the Notice of Appeal. That request being set out in their PHD form, dated 20 January 1998.
In these circumstances we regret that this hearing must be adjourned and direct that the Appellant file affidavit evidence supporting the allegations set out in paragraphs 2 to 7 inclusive of the Notice of Appeal within 21 days of today. Copies of such evidence and the Notice of Appeal will then be sent to the Chairman for his comments. It is not necessary, in our view, to seek additionally the comments of the Tribunal lay members.
When this process is complete the papers are to be referred back to me for further directions.