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 >> Clark v. Watford Borough Council [1999] UKEAT 43_99_1404 (14 April 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/43_99_1404.html
Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 43_99_1404
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H J BYRT QC
MR L D COWAN
MR P R A JACQUES CBE
MRS AUDREY MARGARET CLARK APPELLANT
WATFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | Mr Levinson (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme |
JUDGE JOHN BYRT: This is a case which has caused us a measure of concern and we think there is an arguable case to go through to a Full Hearing. It is the Appellant's case that, as is testified by her witness statement, that there was plenty of work that she could have been doing as opposed to being left idle as a telephonist.
The Employment Tribunal in their decision, para 9, suggest that the Applicant, now the Appellant, had accepted that there was no work and if there was no work that none could be created. There is an obvious conflict here between what she said in her witness statement, what she said in evidence and what the Tribunal found. In view of the fact that the Respondents did not call evidence at all to witness what the true position was we think that this matter should be further explored. In order to help this Tribunal consider the matter when the matter comes back before it again, we think it would be helpful if the Chairman of the Tribunal was asked to set out the extracts of the evidence of Mrs Clark in which she accepted there was no work for her to do and that there was none which the Respondents could have made available for her. These excerpts will relate to the findings of fact by the Tribunal in para 9. They would seem to be in such apparent conflict with what the Applicant says in her witness statement.