United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
For the Respondents	MS KATHERINE TUCKER (of Counsel) Instructed By: Ms J Carter Coventry City Council City Solicitors Dept Solicitor Team 1 The Council House Earl Street Coventry CV1 5RR


 


JUDGE D PUGSLEY:

1. This is a case of an interlocutory appeal against an order of the Tribunal Chairman. We have received a fax today from Mrs Thoburn, the Applicant, saying neither she or her husband would be able to attend, much as they wished to, because they are financially unable to do so and the difficulty she has in undertaking such a long journey, some 300 miles away. She points out that:

"I respectfully ask the Tribunal to bear in mind that I was unable to get any legal help and advice in the preparation of this appeal, because of both financial restrictions, and the time-scale. Unfortunately, in the shortness of time available, we were not able the necessary research to cite any authorities.

I also draw your attention to the attached schedule confirming faxes that have been sent. I hope 'hard copies' of all the documents will be with you in time. Unfortunately guaranteed delivery could not undertake to deliver before 12 noon, so documents will be arriving by recorded first class post."

2. We have considered the skeleton arguments and we notice that Mrs Thorburn, the Appellant's, skeleton argument begins, at paragraph 2:

"The Respondent is a large Local Authority, with very substantial resources available to it whereas the Appellant is an individual, in poor health, with very limited resources and with a lay representative."

3. We do not mean to be unsympathetic in pointing out that Coventry City Council also has a number of other considerations and the cost to them of cases such as this is a matter that should properly be weighed in the balance.
4. In a nutshell, we have considered very carefully the issues that have been raised in the Appellant's skeleton argument and we were told today by Counsel, Ms Tucker for the Local Authority, that they are perfectly prepared to put before the Appellant certain documents and copy them at the Tribunal hearing, covering or deleting those parts of those documents that the Respondent reasonably considers to be confidential or relevant to the Appellant's claim.
5. We are all of the view that the order as drafted by Ms Tucker to do in paragraphs 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 is perfectly fair. It leaves any dispute to be resolved at the Tribunal hearing.
6. On the second issue we make no secret that we found this troublesome. Courts have a major problem in relation to issues of confidentiality that can arise in many areas. We are unitedly of the view that we cannot deal with this in the abstract. The Appellant has certain human rights that her privacy is not to be invaded. We therefore propose to make the order in these terms:

"That the Tribunal hearing the Appellant's claim, having regard to its obligations arising under the Human Rights Act 1998 is to determine the extent to which Mrs Lee's evidence is admissible and the circumstances in which that evidence is to be given, as noted by Mr Caborn when making the order of 15 November 2001."

7. The Employment Appeal Tribunal consider it premature to make any order on the Appellant's appeal against a Witness Order. The Employment Tribunal has to determine the procedure whereby it decides the issue on admissibility. We have in mind that it may be appropriate (we are not in any way saying it is appropriate) for these matters to be determined by the Chairman alone or it may be, depending on the arguments put, to be determined by members of the whole tribunal.
8. We think that it is very difficult for us, at this stage, to give any hard and fast rules because we do not know the nature of what is proposed to be adduced. In a nutshell, we do not think we have enough information to say anything meaningful, except to say there are real issues as to the confidentiality which should be considered in the light of the information proposed to be put before the Tribunal.
9. We agree that costs should be reserved in the light of the draft order.