BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Morgan v United Dominions Trust [1995] UKEAT 237_95_1003 (10 March 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/237_95_1003.html Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 237_95_1003 |
||
[New search] [Help]
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MS S CORBY
MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR A PEEBLES
(Of Counsel)
Lawford & Co
Solicitors
102-104 Sheen Road
Richmond
Surrey
For the Respondents MR CAMPBELL
(Of Counsel)
Sechiari, Clark & Mitchell
Solicitors
116 Cockfosters Road
Barnet
EN4 ODY
JUDGE LEVY QC: We have heard today an interlocutory appeal in a case brought by Ms Morgan against United Dominions Trust Ltd. The Originating Application in this case was issued on 6 May 1994. A Notice of Appearance was entered by the Respondents on 9 June 1994. There was an application to amend the Originating Application on 26 August 1994.
There was a further amendment of the Originating Application dated 26 October 1994 on which date Miss Morgan requested Further and Better Particulars and Discovery of documents. The Industrial Tribunal made an order for Discovery of documents on 23 January 1995 which the Applicant, Miss Morgan did not find entirely satisfactory and there was a further application from the Industrial Tribunal dated 13 February 1995, when the Industrial Tribunal, quite rightly, drew to the attention of the parties the decision of Stone v Charrington & Co Limited when Phillips J, said the following:
"Industrial tribunals were set up with the purpose of operating cheaply, quickly and informally, and as far as possible therefore it is desirable that the formalities of the regular courts should be avoided. To introduce a formal system of discovery and inspection, interlocutories, and so on, might in the abstract produce more perfect justice, but it would be at such a great cost and time, money and manpower that the whole machine would grind to a halt. The industrial tribunals are so organised, and the chairmen, who are very experienced, are so skilled, that they are able and an informal procedure of this kind by and large to do justice between the parties without an elaborate system of interlocutory proceedings. Occasionally it becomes necessary for adjournments to be granted so that unforseen problems can be considered in the light of additional documents and enquiries, or further particulars. No doubt that is sometimes inconvenient and is not an ideal solution, but is the only alternative to an elaborate structure of interlocutory proceedings. Occasionally, it may seem that some hardship is caused in individual cases, but not often, and on the whole the system works, as intended, very fairly between the parties involved."
The Industrial Tribunal refused Miss Morgan's request.
Following that decision there was a further decision from the Industrial Tribunal refusing further interlocutory access or to adjourn the proceedings which had been fixed for hearing next Monday.
The request was made on 1 March. The reply was by letter dated 7 March from the Regional Secretary of the Industrial Tribunal stating:
"Your request for further orders has been refused on the grounds that the further grounds given do not add to those already urged.
Your application for postponement of hearing is refused on the grounds that the issues are clear - if the respondents produce further documents requiring a further application for postponement, an application for costs can be made in the usual way".
Not satisfied with that, an appeal was made to this court and we have had today Mr Peebles appearing for the Applicant, the Appellant here, and Mr Campbell for United Dominions Trust, the Respondents.
It is common ground between both parties that neither side is ready for trial on Monday. Respondents have not yet given the discovery which they should have given months ago. It is also common ground that the Respondents have not yet given some particulars to which Miss Morgan is entitled.
In the circumstances, it seems to us, that it would be a fruitless waste of expense where at least the first half-day of an estimated three day hearing is likely to be lost on interlocutory matters, so that the hearing might well not have concluded in the time allowed for trial in Manchester commencing next Monday.
In the circumstances, we thought it appropriate to notify the Industrial Tribunal in Manchester at the beginning of the day that the case should be taken out of the list. We then gave counsel the opportunity to see if they could agree amongst themselves about the further discovery and inspection which Miss Morgan sought.
By and large, in the course of the morning, they were able to agree to most of the matters about which there was previously argument, and we have ruled on one or two matters where the parties could not reach agreement. The effect of all that is that counsel have prepared a minute of order dealing with the interlocutory applications. To allow time to fulfil the terms of the Minute means that the trial cannot commence until after 10 April.
We have therefore made an order taking out the case for Monday, and ordering that the hearing should be on the first open day after 10 April 1995. Both counsel think that the three days formerly set aside will be sufficient for the proper determination of this dispute. We will cause the Industrial Tribunal in Manchester to be informed of this. To this extent, the appeal is allowed.
We would thank counsel for their help and we hope the case now goes forward to a clean hearing. We can understand the desire of the Industrial Tribunal in Manchester to pay more than lip service to the dictum of Phillips J set out above. However, having heard from both Counsel, we are entirely satisfied that it is desirable for there to be compliance with the orders set out in the Minute and time for the parties then to see the issues to be decided before the three day hearing commences.
