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 >> Weir Valves & Controls (UK) Ltd v. Armitage [2003] UKEAT 0296_03_1510 (15 October 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2003/0296_03_1510.html Cite as: (2004) ICR 371, [2003] UKEAT 0296_03_1510, [2003] UKEAT 296_3_1510, [2004] ICR 371 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Buy ICLR report: [2004] ICR 371] [Help]
At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE RICHARDSON
MR A HARRIS
MISS D WHITTINGHAM
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
For the Appellant | MR R MOORE (of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Cobbetts Solicitors Ship Canal House King Street Manchester M2 4WB |
For the Respondent | MR W McCARTHY (of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Ramsdens Solicitors Ramsdens Street Huddersfield HD1 2TH |
HIS HONOUR JUDGE RICHARDSON
4 "Witness statements of all witnesses upon whose evidence the parties intend to rely at the hearing (including that of the applicant) shall be exchanged at the same time but no later than 14 January 2002. Witness statements shall contain all the evidence of the witness and shall stand as his or her evidence-in-chief. Supplementary questions will only be allowed at the hearing upon the party wanting to ask supplementary questions showing good reason for not including particular evidence in the witness statement."
Subsequently, the hearing was set for 5 February 2003.
The Rules of Procedure
"The Court must always guard itself against the temptation of allowing its indignation to lead to a miscarriage of justice."
The Tribunal's Decision
16 "It is, of course, impossible to know to what extent the Respondents have done so. The Applicant clearly believes they have. If they have that is an advantage that they would have throughout the hearing that we could not, realistically, negate. That would not, therefore, be a fair hearing."
17 "At any event whether a hearing is fair or not is often as much a matter of perception as it is a matter of reality. Mr Armitage is affronted by the Respondent's actions, he firmly believes, as he has said to us, that it is "not fair". He is absolutely right to think that. If we ignore the Respondent's acts he will have that belief throughout these proceedings, and in the event that he were to be unsuccessful will always believe that he has been cheated. We doubt that anything that we were to say or do would alter that. That, in our view, makes a fair hearing impossible."