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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Carter v. Hi-Way Express & Ors [2001] UKEAT 0813_01_2409 (24 September 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0813_01_2409.html
Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 813_1_2409, [2001] UKEAT 0813_01_2409

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

BAILII case number: [2001] UKEAT 0813_01_2409
Appeal No. EAT/0813/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 24 September 2001

Before

MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC

MR P DAWSON OBE

MR B V FITZGERALD


MR S E CARTER APPELLANT

(1) HI-WAY EXPRESS
(2) MR C R HOBSON
(3) MR B K CARTER		 RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING EX PARTE

© Copyright 2001

    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant MISS S ROBERTSON
    APPEARING UNDER THE
    EMPLOYMENT LAW APPEAL
    ADVICE SCHEME
       


     

    MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC

  1. In this matter which comes before us by way of Preliminary Hearing in an appeal from the Employment Tribunal at Leeds, we propose to give leave so that the matter may be fully argued with the Respondents in attendance.

  2. We have had the benefit of an argument from Miss Robertson of Counsel, under the ELAAS Scheme, for whose assistance we are, as ever, grateful. She has identified, following argument, 3 matters upon which she would wish to seek leave to appeal. She has formulated those as amended grounds of appeal. We have given leave for those grounds to be amended for the original grounds in substitution therefore. We consider that the hearing should be limited to the hearing of those 3 grounds.

  3. As to the directions for hearing. We first observe that we have yet to hear the appeal in the case of Hobson where the Notice of Appeal does not raise the same matters as raised in the case of Mr S E Carter. If it should be the case that an application is made in due course by Mr Hobson for any amended Notice of Appeal to be filed, and if it should be the case that that notice raises any issue which is coincident with the 3 grounds set out in Mr Carter's appeal, we would expect the matters in dispute to be resolved at one and the same hearing, with both Mr Carter and Mr Hobson's appeals being dealt with at one and the same time.

  4. On the basis that the case is presently on we estimate that it will take ½ a day to argue. It is, we think, Category C. Skeleton arguments together with any authorities to be relied upon must be provided no less than 14 days prior to the hearing. It seems to us that no further direction is required.

    5. I think perhaps save one Miss Robertson, could you, do you think, undertake to have these amended grounds of appeal typed up?

    Certainly sir, but it then has to go back via the Appellant for his signature. As an ELAAS representative I cannot do it and forward it myself, it has to go………

    In that case we will give leave as it is and we can have it photocopied on the document. If it needs to be put into typescript it can be done later.

    I am more than happy to assist.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0813_01_2409.html