[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> French v Office Cleaning Services Ltd [1994] UKEAT 210_94_1706 (17 June 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/210_94_1706.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 210_94_1706

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 210_94_1706

Appeal No. EAT/210/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 17 June 1994

HIS HONOUR JUDGE J HULL QC

MRS E HART

MR T C THOMAS CBE

---

MR P FRENCH          APPELLANT

OFFICE CLEANING SERVICES LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant THE APPELLANT IN

PERSON


 


JUDGE HULL QC: This is a case where Mr French complained that Office Cleaning Services Ltd were guilty of unfair dismissal. The Industrial Tribunal, which sat under Mr Kelly as Chairman on the 9 December 1993 at London South, held that he had indeed been unfairly dismissed. There were two very serious complaints (I will not go into them) about the manner of his dismissal. They sat again on the 16 December to consider the question of remedy, that is say, reinstatement, re-engagement, or compensation; if compensation, then the amount of compensation. They had announced, according to Mr French, that they would not hear any more evidence.

Shortly before the hearing, Mr French says he was handed a thick file of papers and those apparently included written statements from three employees, or ex employees, of the Respondents, which were relied upon (against Mr French's objection); they were put in and treated as evidence in the case and they were of decisive importance. The Tribunal not only looked at those but they also heard Mr French and concluded that Mr French's conduct was such that he should not receive any compensation.

Mr French complains before us today, although it is not clear from his Notice of Appeal, that this was a surprise to him; that this was a substantial file, far too much for him to master in the time available, that he told the Chairman this, that he had not had an opportunity to consider the papers properly. He pointed out certain matters in relation to the evidence; in particular, he made an allegation, which of course could not be supported, that perhaps a witness had made a statement under duress.

He complained in particular that although there had been since his dismissal, which was in November 1992, something like ten or eleven months to prepare the case, nonetheless these statements, one of them at any rate, was dated that very day, the 16th. He could have pointed out that there was no intimation of this in the Respondents' answer or any attempt to amend their answer, their IT3, to say that quite apart from the grounds of dismissal, there were other matters discovered since which the Tribunal should pay attention to.

It is our impression, having heard Mr French, that these matters arguably may afford him a complaint which sounds in law, that is to say, putting it as simply as I can, that there was such surprise as led to unfairness at the second part of the hearing, and bearing in mind that he was appearing in person, he should have had an opportunity to consider his position. The question arose whether he should ask for the witnesses to attend in person, what evidence he should adduce himself and whether any further documents he should put in, in response to this large file. The discrepancy in resources, of course, is considerable between a person in Mr French's position and the employers and one would expect, and we are not saying that it did not happen, one would certainly expect the Tribunal to be vigilant to watch his interests.

In the circumstances, we allow this appeal to continue on the basis that it may well raise an arguable point of law and we say no more about it than that. We, of course, have heard only one side. We ask the learned Chairman to provide his Notes of Evidence. We ask Mr French to consider whether he should amend his Notice of Appeal to raise the points which appear, expressly. We also invite him to consider whether he can obtain legal aid or legal assistance in some form or other to continue his appeal. We also ask, of course, for the documents in the case to be sent up, and in particular, the documents which the Tribunal was shown on this second occasion.