United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR SEAN JONES (of Counsel) Messrs Bond Pearce Solicitors Town Quay House 7 Town Quay Southampton SO14 2PT
For the First Respondent For the Second Respondent	MR TIM DRACASS (of Counsel) Messrs Warner Goodman & Streat Solicitors 8/9 College Place London Road Southampton SO15 2FF THE SECOND RESPONDENT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED


 


MR JUSTICE HOOPER: This is an appeal from a decision of the Employment Tribunal at Southampton communicated by telephone message at 2.30 p.m. on 28th February 2001 (page 7 of the bundle).

1. We have agreed to hear this appeal, although it was not listed before us because we were dealing with another matter in connection with these proceedings this morning.
2. This morning we concluded that the case due to start on Monday and last for ten days should not be heard by any member of the Southampton Region Employment Tribunal.
3. Although this case is due to start on Monday and last for ten days and involves an extensive analysis of many years of alleged discrimination, it is, we find, almost incomprehensible that the parties did not exchange witness statements until 4 o'clock on Tuesday, 27th February. Today is Thursday.
4. The appellants object to the respondent relying upon a number of statements exchanged on Tuesday. On 28th February solicitors for the appellant sent by fax a letter to the Regional Chairman of the Employment Tribunals asking the Chairman for an order that the statements there listed should be excluded. The letter refers to the statements of Dr Regina Beneviste, Dr Celia Glass, Mr Kenneth Farrow and Professor Timothy Sluckin. The letter states that the appellants are at a serious disadvantage being unable, in effect, to meet a number of the allegations contained in those statements. The appellants were therefore asking ex parte for an order that the additional statements be excluded.
5. Not surprisingly, Mr Scott, to whom the letter was referred, decided that the matters contained in the letter were issues to be decided on the merits in the event that there remained live issues at the hearing. According to the telephone message, Mr Scott decided that it was for the tribunal to hear the case and rule on the issue. He also decided:

"It was not appropriate for it to be dealt with on an ex parte basis."

6. It is impossible to describe that decision as perverse. In the ideal world matters of this kind should be resolved before the start of the hearing if they can be. We do not know why it was that statements were not served until 27th February at 4 o'clock, but that having occurred, it was simply not possible for a Chairman to hear argument and to rule on these matters. We are told that there are 17 lever arch files to which reference is proposed to be made at the hearing.
7. Mr Jones has sought a ruling from us as to whether or not these statements were admissible. That, in our view, is not something that this tribunal could now decide.
8. The parties are, for reasons which we do not know, in a situation where the issues contained in the letter of 28th February can now only properly be resolved at the hearing if the hearing starts on Monday. All we can say is that should the tribunal rule that the evidence is admissible, it will obviously have to give very careful consideration to any request made for an adjournment.

[Application for costs on behalf the respondent to this appeal.]

9. No, we are against you.