Appeal No.	 EAT/962/95
		 EAT/1236/95
		 EAT/717/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 11 December 1996,
	30 January 1997 and
	5 February 1997

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MR A E R MANNERS
MR G H WRIGHT MBE

MS URSULA RINIKER 	APPELLANT

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

INTERLOCUTORY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	IN PERSON	
For the Respondents	MR PAUL EPSTEIN
(of Counsel)
Messrs Wilde Sapte
Solicitors
1 Fleet Place
London
EC4M 7WS	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):     During the course of this appeal the Appellant made 23 applications to us of an interlocutory nature and today we were asked to rule on a large number of other applications running to 13 in all.  During the course of this hearing we have ruled on those 13 applications contained in her letter of 31 January 1997, together with her application in her letter of 5 February 1997.

	I turn therefore to the 23 applications which were identified on the last occasion which she said she wanted rulings on.  Most of those related to documents and, in the course of the hearing, we have indicated a relaxed attitude taken by us to the reception of documents for the purposes of determining the appeal, and we have granted those applications in so far as they needed to be granted for us to receive them and take them into account.

	That leaves effectively, these applications.  She has asked for the notes of the interlocutory hearing, that is, the notes of evidence and what took place and the Chairman’s notes on 31 March 1993; that is in the context of her contention that it was the first occasion on which there had been dispute as to whether the parties had concluded a binding contract.  We refuse that application.  It is too late to ask for notes of evidence and notes of the hearing at this stage, and, in any event, they are not going to be of assistance to us.  

	Then, we were asked for notes regarding the hearing on 26 and 27 July 1995.  We refuse that request.  It is too late in the day to make such a request.  We do not consider that they will be of assistance to us and we do not regard there as being any material point on which those notes will be of assistance.

	Then there was an application in regard to notes for a hearing on 20 April 1993.  Again, we refuse that application for the same reasons.

	The Appellant must understand that we are a court which can only deal with points of law.  We do not require notes of evidence from Industrial Tribunals, or notes relating to a hearing from Industrial Tribunals, save in exceptional and necessary circumstances.  The circumstances do not warrant the obtaining of those notes.  If we had considered that they were required, apart from anything else, it would have disrupted the appellate process because it takes some considerable time, particularly where Chairmen are having to try and re-construct their notes, in relation to matters which took place as long ago as 1993.  Accordingly those applications are dismissed.

	As I have indicated, in relation to all the other applications, broadly speaking, they have been dealt with.

	We were asked to make a declaration that the Industrial Tribunal should expedite, or pending preliminary applications, that the Employment Appeal Tribunal should expedite this appeal.  We are not prepared to make such an order, but we may well have something to say about how the cases should proceed hereafter in any judgment we give on this appeal.

	That, I think, deals with the only outstanding matters.  Unless the Appellant thinks otherwise we conclude therefore these interlocutory applications.