 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Ministry Of Defence v Hunt [1995] UKEAT 85_95_0410 (4 October 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/85_95_0410.html Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 85_95_410, [1995] UKEAT 85_95_0410 |
||
[New search] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)
(As in Chambers)
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR MURRAY HUNT
(of Counsel)
The Treasury Solicitor
Room 449
Lacon House
Theobalds Road
London
WC1X 8RY
For the Respondents MS D KING
(of Counsel)
Hounslow Legal Resource Centre
12 Harold Avenue
Hayes
Middlesex
UB3 4QW
MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is application for the production of Chairman's Notes of Evidence on an appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal at London (South) after a hearing on 25th October, 18th November and 8th December 1994.
In full reasons sent to parties on 20th December 1994, the Tribunal unanimously decided that the Ministry of Defence had unlawfully discriminated against Mrs Hunt on the grounds of her sex, and that she was entitled to an award of compensation calculated in accordance with the reasons set out in a decision of sixteen pages.
The Ministry of Defence was dissatisfied with the decision, and appealed by Notice of Appeal received on 27th January 1995. The Notice of Appeal set out the various grounds on which the decision was criticised. No reference was made in the Notice of Appeal to any necessity for the production of the Chairman's notes.
The appeal was fixed for hearing in the second week of June 1995. An application was made a few days before the hearing for the production of Chairman's notes. I dealt with the application made by Counsel on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. The application was refused, not surprisingly in view of its lateness.
This is a repeat of the application which was refused. It is argued by Mr Hunt on behalf of the Ministry of Defence that I should review and revoke the Order made on 7th June 1995. There is power to review orders and correct errors under Rule 33 of the Employment Appeal Tribunals Rules 1993, but only on the grounds which are set out there. The only ground relied upon by Mr Hunt is that the interests of justice require a review of the order refusing Chairman's notes. The only point that he was able to make in support of that application, was that there have been a change of circumstances. The previous application was refused on the grounds that it was only a week or so away from the start of the hearing of the appeal. That appeal was in fact adjourned. It has been re-fixed for 1st November 1995, and we are four weeks away from that. So he says I should proceed to hear his arguments as to why the production of notes are necessary for the appeal.
I observe from reference to my notes of the hearing on 7th June 1995 that there had not been given to me then any explanation for the lateness of the application. There were not given to me then any details of those witnesses whose evidence would be relevant to the appeal. I was faced with an application for production of all the notes.
The application which Mr Hunt makes today is in a Treasury Solicitors' letter of 29th August 1995. Although it sets out the grounds to which the Notes are said to relevant, again there is no attempt to identify whose evidence is relevant to those particular grounds. In fact the letter simply asks for production of the Chairman's Notes of Evidence on the grounds that they would assist the Employment Appeal Tribunal in determining the matters and enable the Employment Appeal Tribunal to establish whether the findings and facts were supported by the evidence before the Tribunal and what evidential facts were given weight by the Chairman.
Those are the only matters before me. The application is opposed by Miss King on behalf of the respondent to the appeal. She points out, as I have mentioned, that the request is simply for all the notes, and her concern is that if the earlier order is revoked and I make an order for production of notes, this will result in further delay of the hearing of the appeal.
The basis on which I propose to deal with the application is this. This is an application for review. I am not satisfied that the interests of justice require me to take a different view about the Chairman's Notes of Evidence than I took on 7th June 1995. The burden is on the person seeking a review to establish those grounds. No explanation has been given to me as to why further time has passed since the earlier refusal to make this application. Under the Rules 33(2), an application for a review of an order must be made within 14 days of the date of the order. This is made months after the date of the order, without any explanation as to why I should extend the time for making the application for a review. In my judgment this application for a review is out of time, and does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 33(1)(c). The order which I made on 7th June 1995 refusing notes will therefore stand. I refuse the application made in the letter of 29th August 1995.