[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Nevrides v. R & J Builders (London) Ltd [2000] UKEAT 963_00_0112 (1 December 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/963_00_0112.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 963_00_0112, [2000] UKEAT 963__112

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR P TROOP (of Counsel) Instructed By: Ms Harsha Purohit Camden Community Law Centre 2 Prince of Wales Road London NW5 3LG


 


JUDGE J ALTMAN:

1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at London (North) on 6 June 2000. It comes before us by way of preliminary hearing to determine if there is a point of law capable of argument in full before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The decision of the Employment Tribunal related to the preliminary question as to whether or not the Appellant was dismissed.
2. This appeal relates to the conduct of the hearing. There was, it appears, an existing direction for prior exchange of documents and the complaint is that, notwithstanding that direction, the Respondents only handed their document bundle to the Applicant as they entered the Tribunal, so that the Appellant had insufficient time to prepare.
3. The learned Chairman has helpfully sent a letter dated 24 August 2000, setting out the circumstances in which matters arose. The Appellant was being cross-examined when the Chairman learned for the first time of the late delivery of documents. He considered that the mischief was cured by the luncheon adjournment which gave the Appellant the opportunity to prepare for his cross-examination of the Respondents' witnesses. However, we consider that there is a point of law worthy of argument as follows, yet whilst recognising the wide discretion that must be left generally to Chairmen in the conduct of proceedings.
4. The Appellant says that he felt at a disadvantage in the presentation of his own case. At the present time there is no material that he says he would have spoken about, which he did not speak about, had he had the documents in advance. But it seems that he is saying that he was effectively being ambushed by the presentation to him of documents during his cross-examination which he should have had in advance. Did the Chairman err in law in preventing a fair trial, by failing to adjourn when he learned of the late delivery of documents so as to enable the Appellant to absorb them before the cross-examination proceeded or did he err in law in failing to give the Appellant an opportunity to give further evidence before embarking on the Respondents' case after the luncheon adjournment?
5. This full hearing will be listed for one hour in Category C, Skeleton Arguments to be served not less than 14 days before the hearing and the parties will note what difficulties can arise in failing to follow such directions.
6. We order that the learned Chairman be asked to provide any part of his notes, which relate to the issue of the production of documents as referred to in his letter, and we give leave to the parties to file an affidavit as to their recollection and impression of what occurred in relation to the matter of documents.