[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hammond v Sir John Fitzgerald Ltd [1999] UKEAT 1033_98_1404 (14 April 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1033_98_1404.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1033_98_1404

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Mr P McDonnell (Representative) for Mr I Hammond 11 Grenada Close Whitley Lodge Estate Whitley Bay Tyne & Wear NE26 1HP


 


JUDGE JOHN BYRT: This is a Preliminary Hearing in an Appeal against a decision promulgated on 10th June 1998 of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Newcastle Upon Tyne when they held that the Employee's claim for unfair dismissal failed. The Employee, Mr Hammond appeals.

Mr Hammond was a doorman at a public house in Whitley. He was dismissed at a Disciplinary Hearing as a result of allegations being made against him to the effect that he was dealing in drugs at the public house. At the hearing of the Employment Tribunal, it was conceded that the procedures at that Disciplinary Hearing were defective, but they were cured at an Appeal Hearing on 13th January 1998.

At the Hearing of the Employment Tribunal on 11th May 1998, it was Mr Hammond 's case that he had been provided with none of the bundle that was to be used at the Tribunal Hearing and in particular, none of the witness statements that were to be used at that occasion, that he was handed them as he went into the Tribunal room and that was the first time that he saw them. It is said by Mr McDonnell, who has appeared before us today, that he asked the Chairman for an adjournment in order to be able to read the documentation including the witness statements, but this was denied him. It is apparent from the Tribunal's Reasons that considerable use was made of the witness statements because they are referred to in the Reasons themselves.

We think that there is a matter here which should be considered further at a Full Hearing of this Tribunal and to that end we think there are a number of questions listed below which should be asked of this Employment Tribunal Chairman to assist the Tribunal on that occasion.

There is another aspect as well which causes us a measure of concern. Mr McDonnell has pointed out to us that at the Appeal Hearing on 13th January, Mr Hammond was shown only one witness statement namely, one consisting of only 3 lines which is included in the bundle of documents we now have before us. Mr Garrett, who conducted that Appeal Hearing, undoubtedly had a number of witness statements because after the Appeal Hearing itself, he went on and checked out the accuracy and genuineness of those statements. Mr McDonnell tells us that at no stage was Mr Hammond allowed a sight of those additional witness statements which Mr Garrett went and checked out.

For the reasons which I have mentioned, the fact that Mr Hammond does not appear to have had any of the witness statements relevant to the Appeal procedure, and that he only had the statements relating to the Employment Tribunal hearing on the morning of the Hearing itself, are matters which will need to be considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal when it hears this matter at a later date. In the meantime, in order to assist this Tribunal when it hears this appeal further, we think there are 4 questions which should be put to the Chairman of the Employment Tribunal.

1. Was the Chairman aware that the Respondent's bundle of documents including the witness statements was handed to Mr Hammond for the first time at the Tribunal Hearing.
2. Did Mr McDonnell , Mr Hammond 's representative, ask for the opportunity to read those statements before being required to conduct the case on behalf of Mr Hammond at that Tribunal Hearing.
3. Did the Chairman refuse the opportunity for him to do so.
4. Was the Chairman aware that it was the Applicant's case that he had not seen any of the witness statements at the Appeal Hearing on 13th January 1998.