United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR NICHOLAS BERRY (Of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Procaccini Farrell & Co Solicitors 213A Clapham Road London SW9 0QH


 


JUDGE LEVY QC

1. This is the first hearing of an appeal by the Management Committee of Chambers of 8 Kings Bench Walk following a decision of an Employment Tribunal held at London Central on 26 October 2000, 23 January 2001 and 24 January 2001 (In Chambers). The decision of the Employment Tribunal was remitted to the parties on 21 February. What was in issue between the parties was whether the Applicant, the Respondent here, was unfairly dismissed.
2. The Respondent was a clerk in a set of Barristers Chambers from which there were some defections. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that he was unfairly dismissed. He was awarded £17,005.28 in compensation, £4,657.56 for entitlement of money in lieu of notice and £776.26 for the Appellant's failure to give written reasons for its decision.
3. Mr Berry who appears on this first application has persuaded us that the matter raised in the grounds of appeal are arguable and in these circumstances the matter will go to a full hearing. One issue is as to whether, inadvertently or otherwise, the Chairman and the Committee had sight of a witness statement, reference to which was not permissible in evidence during the hearing. There is one paragraph in the decision of the Employment Tribunal which Mr Berry tells us was not evidence given by the Respondent. That is a sentence in paragraph 13 of the Extended Reasons, where some of the Respondent's evidence is thus summarised:

"His evidence was that prior to 5 June he had not received any offer of employment from them, but that when the new Chambers discovered that he had been dismissed they considered themselves to be under a moral obligation to offer him a post."

4. It would be helpful if the notes of evidence of the members of the Tribunal relating to that passage could be produced. We understand that Mr Burton gave evidence on 26 October 2000 when the Tribunal was comprised of 3 members.
5. The Extended Reasons do not mention evidence of two Counsel who gave evidence, namely Mr Mann and Mr Kitting. Mr Berry in the grounds of appeal sets out the evidence which each Counsel gave to the Tribunal. If it is accepted by the Respondent to the appeal that such evidence was given, there will be no need for the Chairman to produce notes. As to their evidence, we would ask Mr Berry to enquire of the Respondent's adviser whether his assertion as to his evidence is challenged and the reply to be obtained within 14 days. If there is no challenge then there will no need to seek the Chairman's notes on this part of the evidence. If it is subject to challenge, the Chairman's notes relating to these witnesses' evidence should be sought.
6. Given the background of the case in our judgment, the parties may be well advised to consider mediation, which might enable this appeal to be settled without a full hearing. However at this point in time, the appeal will go forward for a full hearing.