[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Devine v Mancunian Glass Ltd [1996] UKEAT 1170_96_2910 (29 October 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/1170_96_2910.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 1170_96_2910

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): Mr Devine has made a complaint against his former employers, Mancunian Glass Ltd. That complaint has yet to be adjudicated upon by the Industrial Tribunal, although a hearing is scheduled to take place on 31st October 1996.

The former employers have gone to a firm of solicitors who Mr Devine believes ought not to be acting in the circumstances because personnel at those solicitors have acquired information in relation to him which were obtained by them in confidence when he had been dealing with them himself.

He believes that it would be improper for them to continue to represent the employers in the forthcoming hearing of his complaint against them.

Accordingly, he made a formal complaint to the Solicitors Complaints Bureau on 1st August 1996, and in response to a request for particulars of his complaint, he has provided the Complaints Bureau with details of his complaint dated 1st October 1996.

It is Mr Devine's belief that he will not have justice done at the forthcoming hearing if the solicitors continue to remain on the record for his employers, and has approached the tribunal about this matter and has sought an adjournment from them pending resolution of his complaint.

In the course of correspondence the Industrial Tribunal have indicated that, without deciding the matter, it did not seem to them that there would be any justifiable complaint of a conflict. What they said was this:

"The Chairman has asked to say that, without his knowing all the facts in this matter - that is, not to doubt your letter but without knowing Mr Hirst's version of the situation - it does not strike him as being a conflict situation, such as to put the Tribunal on notice of any potential injustice."

As a result, the tribunal have refused to accede to Mr Devine's application that the matter should be stood out, and as I have said, it is due to come on for hearing on 31st October 1996.

Mr Devine has come before us complaining about the position in which he finds himself. We have some sympathy with the predicament in which he find himself. But it seems to us that the correct course for Mr Devine to follow is for him to appear before the Industrial Tribunal on 31st October 1996 and, if so minded, to present his application for an adjournment to the tribunal pending determination of the position of the solicitors. It is clear, and we have been told, that Mr Devine has not been well in the recent past. No doubt the tribunal will take that into account as well, when considering whether they ought to grant an adjournment were he to make any such application.

It seemed to this tribunal that Mr Devine would be well advised before going to the Industrial Tribunal to enquire of the solicitors' authorities, precisely what the status of his complaints is, so that he may properly advise the Industrial Tribunal on Thursday when he appears before them. We have also indicated to him that it seems to us, that if he wishes to do so, he might think it sensible to seek the advice of a solicitor as soon as possible in relation to the problem which he feels he is encountering with the respondents' solicitors and the conflict of interest. To that extent we endorse, I think, what the Industrial Tribunal themselves have been indicating to Mr Devine, that it might be helpful if he were to seek legal advice.

Accordingly, at the moment we are not prepared to give any indication as to how the matter should proceed. We believe that the Industrial Tribunal can be trusted to ensure that Mr Devine is treated in a fair and just way, and that his application is dealt with on that basis at whatever time they think correct. Accordingly, at this stage, we will simply make no order and await the outcome of the application.