United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MISS E MELVILLE (of Counsel) Instructed By: Ms K O'Neill Legal Officer USDAW Oakley 188 Wilmslow Road Fallowfield Manchester M14 6LJ


 


MR JUSTICE CHARLES: The parties to the appeal which comes before us today are a Mr Turtle and a company called Stead and Simpson. Mr Turtle is the Appellant and was the Applicant before the Employment Tribunal.

1. The appeal is against the refusal of the Chairman of the Tribunal to provide Extended Reasons. The Notice of Appeal sets out the grounds for that appeal and is supported today by a skeleton argument which should be placed on the file.
2. In our judgment the Notice of Appeal as drafted and that skeleton argument raise points of law that are reasonably arguable and it is not necessary for us to limit or redefine the issues so stated. In our judgment the grounds of appeal raised by those documents should go to a full hearing.
3. Additionally, the Appellant has issued what is entitled "Notice of Appeal No.2" which also seeks, so far as may be necessary, an extension of time to base an appeal on the Summary Reasons provided and, as we understand the position, this appeal is put forward as a fail-safe should the Appellant fail in his request for Extended Reasons or if Extended Reasons were never to be provided. This Tribunal has a discretion to allow an appeal to proceed on the basis of Summary Reasons.
4. It seems to us that the issues relating to "Notice of Appeal No.2", namely whether this Tribunal should allow the appeal to proceed on Summary Reasons and, if necessary, an extension of time, should be dealt with at the same time as the appeal against the refusal to provide Extended Reasons. It seems to us that it would be inappropriate to deal with the two appeals in series which would result in delay. Additionally, it seems to us that on those issues in respect of "Notice of Appeal No. 2" the Respondents should be given the opportunity of being heard.
5. Finally we record that in our view should the appeal as to giving Extended Reasons fail, points of law that are reasonably arguable as to whether or not the appeal should proceed on the basis of the Summary Reasons exist in this case.
6. During the course of the hearing we have identified a number of directions that we have given, which I will not repeat in this judgment, but which will appear in the Order of the Tribunal.
7. There remains the issue of categorisation of this case. On the appeal issues arise as to the recollection of the Chairman and the approach of the Chairman who, we understand from the correspondence, is also the Regional Chairman.
8. The directions we have given have been directed to obtaining, in statement form, the recollection of the parties as to the exchange which took place between a representative of the Applicant and the Employment Tribunal at the end of the hearing concerning the giving of reasons. Those documents may identify common ground between the parties, and additionally between the parties and the Tribunal. Also or alternatively they may identify differences in recollection.
9. It seems to us that at this stage it is premature for us to indicate how any disputes of fact should be resolved on the final determination of this appeal and that there is certainly room in this case for the appeal to be decided on the basis that there is a difference of recollection as to some of the exchanges. Any issue as to whether or not there needs to be oral evidence should, we think, be left to the Tribunal that hears the full appeal. If there is a need for oral evidence that might necessitate an adjournment but it seems to us premature to try and deal with that issue on any directions hearing.
10. The issues that arise (including the assessment of the facts) lead us to conclude that this is a matter that should be heard by a Tribunal chaired by the visiting High Court Judge or the President. We will therefore give it Category A and a time estimate of a day.