United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR J MURPHY (of Counsel) Mr M Ayub Sidiq Solicitor Unit 8 Watford Street Business Park Blackburn Lancs BB1 7LD


 


JUDGE H WILSON: This is the preliminary hearing of the appeal by the company, Vital Holdings against the findings of the Industrial Tribunal. There are two grounds of appeal. The first is that, when the hearing actually took place before the Industrial Tribunal, the Applicants produced and relied on other matters than had been indicated beforehand. Those matters are set out in paragraph 5 of the Decision. In particular, the Applicants produced a newsletter published by the company which referred to divisions including Vital Security, Cathedral Security and others. Complaint is made about that. Had they known, says Mr Murphy today, the company could have come along prepared with evidence in rebuttal.

We find that we cannot accept that submission because, from the outset, the Notices of Appearance - some of which were entered by the solicitor, Mr Sadiq himself and at least one of which was entered by the manager of the company - all put in issue the point that these Applicants were not employed by Vital Holdings Plc. Right from the beginning that was the company's case. We therefore find no substance in what Mr Murphy has urged upon us in that regard.

The second ground of appeal alleges bias. So far as bias is concerned, we note that Mr Sadiq is a Solicitor of the Supreme Court and therefore we would have expected an expressed sense of outrage from the outset, and most certainly the inclusion of the allegation of bias in the appeal itself. It was not in fact raised for four months after the original Notice of Appeal. Mr Murphy's phrase was that what produced the letter which amended the Notice of Appeal was the fast approaching hearing. We are not satisfied by the evidence or the circumstances and we find the second ground also without substance. Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed.