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 >> Tiyamiyu v London Borough Of Hackney & Ors [1998] UKEAT 6_97_2301 (23 January 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/6_97_2301.html
Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 6_97_2301
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KIRKWOOD
MR D A C LAMBERT
MR B M WARMAN
MR S TIYAMIYU APPELLANT
THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY & OTHERS RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
APPLICATION FOR CHAIRMAN’S NOTES OF EVIDENCE
| For the Appellant | THE APPELLANT IN PERSON |
MR JUSTICE KIRKWOOD: The appellant asks the Appeal Tribunal to order the preparation of certain parts of the Chairman's Notes of Evidence which are particularised in a letter to the Employment Appeal Tribunal dated 16th January 1998.
In the course of argument upon that application the appellant indicated that he does not now require Notes of Evidence of Miss Simmons. The appellant has helpfully reminded us of the Practice Direction (Employment Appeal Tribunal Procedure) 1996 dated 29th March 1996 and to paragraph 7 of that Practice Direction. That direction sets out the circumstances in which application for production of Chairman's Notes might be made, it contains this:
"7(6)The EAT will only order production of the Chairman's notes and the supply of copies to the parties if satisfied that all or parts of such notes are necessary for the purpose of arguing the point of law on the appeal.
(7) Notes of evidence are not ordered to be produced and supplied to the parties to enable them to check or double check the reasoning or findings in the decision against evidence given to or submissions made at the hearing or to enable the parties to embark on a "fishing expedition" to establish grounds of appeal or additional grounds of appeal."
There is no question here that the appellant wanting to undertake a "fishing expedition". We do, however, have in mind that the hearing before the Industrial Tribunal took place over some 21 days or so and the extended reasons of the tribunal run to some 48 or 49 pages. The appellant does not seek to say that the tribunal made findings of fact which were not open to it on the evidence, even though it is plain that he is not particularly happy with a large number of the findings that the tribunal made. He seeks to persuade us, nevertheless, despite the length of the hearing and the comprehensive nature of the extended reasons, that Notes of Evidence of some of the witnesses in some respects are necessary for the argument of some the points of law set out in his various grounds of appeal.
We have listened carefully to the application. We are completely unpersuaded of the necessity for the production of those notes, and we propose to dismiss the application for the preparation of Chairman's Notes of Evidence in its entirety.