United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR N DUGDALE (of Counsel) Under the Employment Law Appeal Advise Scheme.


 


JUDGE H WILSON

1. In this preliminary hearing of the proposed appeal by the Appellant she has had the advantage of advice and representation by Mr Dugdale under the ELAAS scheme and his intervention has emphasised the narrowness of the dispute. We are just persuaded that the matter should go to full argument by reason of the fundamental principle, that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. With that in mind we have formulated three questions, largely along the lines that we discussed with Mr Dugdale, upon which we think there should be full argument. We do not permit the Notice of Appeal as drafted to go forward at all, but we think there should be full argument concerning the following questions:

Whether it was perverse of the Employment Tribunal to receive contemporaneous notes of a meeting when the author of those notes was available to give oral and therefore best evidence of the meeting.

Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in failing to give practical effect to their manifest concern over the absence of Mrs Northbridge née Horrell. We have in mind the invitation that Mrs Leonard should try to telephone her over the middle day adjournment.

2. Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in their findings about sex discrimination as expressed in paragraphs 3 and 9 of the extended reasons.
3. We think that the final argument should be category C and our estimate of time would be 2 hours. Skeleton arguments to be exchanged 14 days before the date set for hearing and an agreed bundle to be filed 28 days before the date fixed for hearing. We give leave for a Notice of Appeal raising the three questions we have referred to, to be substituted for the Notice of Appeal originally put in. Within 14 days.