United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Mr Mark Sutton (Of Counsel) Messrs Osborne Clake Solicitors Hillgate House 26 Old Bailey London EC4M 7HS


 


JUDGE ALTMAN:

1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at London (North) over a very long period, some four weeks, culminating in a final decision on the 29 March 1999. It comes before us by way of preliminary hearing to determine whether there are arguable grounds of law such as to merit this matter being considered in full by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
2. We have all considered carefully the papers in this case. We have read the very full extended reasons of the Employment Tribunal and we have read the very full Notice of Appeal. Normally in a case of this kind we would consider whether there was any arguable ground of appeal and if not would dismiss the appeal at this stage. This is so not least in a case which goes back over events of some considerable time ago which is effectively not yet concluded and in relation to which it is clearly desirable to reach a conclusion as soon as possible.
3. In those cases that are to go forward to a hearing we would endeavour to ensure that only the main and seriously arguable points went forward and would try to provide the directions which would facilitate the expeditious and clear presentation of this case at the full hearing. We are satisfied having read the Notice of Appeal that there are arguable grounds of appeal.
4. We note that ground 6, 10 and 11 have now been withdrawn and we give leave for the Notice of Appeal to be amended accordingly but the remaining grounds of appeal are seriously argued and it seems to us are available for argument on the decision. We have no view whatsoever as to the ultimate merit of those arguments.
5. We are fortunate that Mr Horan, who is counsel for the Respondent, has been here today in attendance, because we have been able to discuss the best way forward. Clearly the Respondent does not conceed the points of appeal. But in this particular case, whilst we are satisfied that the grounds raised are arguable, we cannot see a helpful way of narrowing or eliminating the issues by way of an interventionist argument directed to one party and in the absence of another.
6. Bearing in mind that both parties are represented by experienced Counsel we consider that the best way forward is to give a series of directions. We have asked Mr Sutton to review his Notice of Appeal, so as to re-draw the format of the Notice of Appeal into distinctive types of ground of appeal which we have discussed informally but which is unnecessary to cite in the decision.
7. A number of the matters raised in the current Notice of Appeal are essentially examples of a small number of propositions which it seems to us could helpfully be used as the framework for a redrawn notice, and Mr Sutton has helpfully agreed to redraw the Notice of Appeal. So we give leave for the Notice of Appeal to be amended in its form and we propose 14 days subject to any representation that this may need amendment.
8. The Respondent sought a review in this case of some of the elements leading to the decision of the Tribunal, and contained in a letter dated 25 May 1999 to the Employment Tribunal. We understand that the application for review was refused but the Respondent has reserved his right to enter a cross-appeal. We propose therefore, subject to representations, to order that within 28 days of the amended Notice of Appeal being served, the Respondent should file any cross appeal which they wish to raise. Secondly, they should file within the same period a statement of their answer to the Notice of Appeal.

I express this as an informal document but I anticipate that it would be of considerable assistance. It may be that those two documents will overlap or can be incorporated after due thought in a single document. It may not be necessary to have a formal cross-appeal but that is a matter for Counsel.

9. We also request that a chronology be prepared and agreed by counsel and to be submitted, together with skeleton arguments, not less than 14 days before the hearing of the appeal. And we also direct that the parties be at liberty to request a directions hearing to clarify the issues such request to be made in good time before the hearing. Again we have put that in general terms because in this particular case we know that their counsel can be relied upon to assess whether such hearing would assist the case or not. We have sufficient information before us to know whether that is the case and the danger of a directions hearing that does not do a lot of good is that its only achievement is to further delay the ultimate hearing of the case.
10. The final hearing should be listed for a full day. Within 14 days of the service of the cross-appeal and statement of response to the Notice of Appeal, the parties should send a written request for any notes of evidence to be agreed by them if possible, and including an estimate of the length of the hearing devoted to the particular requests, and the matter should then be placed before a judge to determine that request, if necessary at an oral hearing.
11. We think that if there is to be an application for a stay then it should be done in proper form so the proper parties can have an opportunity of considering it.
12. We direct that in the event that the Appellant wishes to seek a stay of the remedies hearing currently before the Employment Tribunal, application for that should be made and placed before a judge in due course, with representations in writing in the first instance from both parties.
13. Mr Horan has helpfully indicated that from his point of view he concedes that the argument of the Appeal as currently framed does require the notes of evidence so far requested, on behalf of the Appellant. There should possibly be the addition of Mr Acres but of course Mr Horan reserves his position as to what further notes may be requested once his Notice of Appeal has gone in and both reserve their final position to take stock once each has exchanged their statements of the case.