[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Barlow v Gala Leisure Ltd (t/a Gala Clubs) [1996] UKEAT 632_96_0312 (3 December 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/632_96_0312.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 632_96_0312, [1996] UKEAT 632_96_312

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC: Mr Barlow has not attended court, despite notification that there would be a hearing today under the ex parte procedures of his appeal dated 7 June 1996. A skeleton argument has been submitted on his behalf and we have considered its contents and the contents of his Notice of Appeal. Mr Barlow was employed by Gala Leisure Ltd t/a Gala Clubs ("the Employer") from September 1990 as an Engineering Maintenance Supervisor. His employment ended on 24 November 1995. Mr Barlow complained that he was unfairly summarily dismissed. He applied to the Industrial Tribunal by an application received on 18 December 1995. A Notice of Appearance was put in by the Employer saying, in summary, it was fair and reasonable for the employers to have dismissed in the circumstances.

There was a hearing before a Tribunal sitting in Manchester on 26 March. The Decision was sent to the parties on 30 April 1996. It is from the Decision that Mr Barlow wishes to appeal.

The Extended Reasons have, unusually, a paragraph which it is completely impossible to follow, because there is a question mark in the fourth line of the text. The second sentence of paragraph 2 contains this passage:

"2. ...Mr Ripley stated in the interview both these women ......? ........whilst they both appeared to be visibly upset and shaken they stated that the applicant had gone over to their machine and stated 'Fucking stop it - if you fucking don't stop it you will get what Corless got'. ..."

It seems that a draft of the Chairman's Extended Reasons was signed by him before it had been completed. Further, paragraph 3 of the Extended Reasons, deals with the evidence of Mr Ripley and it deals with it by setting out first what Mr Ripley said in cross-examination and later, what Mr Ripley stated in examination-in-chief. This is really rather an unusual way of setting out a note of what evidence was given below and it may be helpful if the Chairman, at the same time as he fills in the gap left in paragraph 2, was to look at paragraph 3 to see whether there should be an amended Decision with Extended Reasons corrected, sent to the parties.

At this stage we find it impossible to rule as to whether Mr Barlow's appeal should go forward. We will therefore adjourn the preliminary hearing until such time as the Chairman has had the opportunity to consider these remarks. We then hope the matter can be re-listed pretty quickly for a different panel to consider whether the appeal should go forward.

We understand that this is not the first time that a Decision has been promulgated, the text of which has clearly not been fully corrected. However carefully they correct draft Decisions, Chairmen of Industrial Tribunals, like Homer, can nod. It is, however, to be hoped that procedures are available within the offices of an Industrial Tribunal to ensure that Decisions are not promulgated with errors such as that found in paragraph 2 here.