[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Stafford v National Westminster Bank Plc [1999] UKEAT 1288_98_3003 (30 March 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1288_98_3003.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1288_98_3003

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Ms R Crasnow Counsel Ms S Leslie Messrs Irwin Mitchell Solicitors 48-50 St Johns Street London EC1M 4DP
For the Respondent	Mr T J Archer Solicitor Messrs Richards Butler Beaufort House 15 St Botolph Street London EC3A 7EE


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON: This matter arises from a Preliminary Hearing which took place before His Honour Judge Altman and two colleagues on 2nd December 1998. The Court permitted the matter to continue for a full hearing and the Tribunal made this Order.

"The Tribunal orders that the parties do seek to agree any facts requiring the Chairman's notes of evidence and if in default thereof either party may have liberty to make a written application for notes of evidence to the Employment Appeal Tribunal before 31st December 1998."

Both parties are represented by solicitors and they were effectively unable to agree, in a way satisfactory to themselves, the facts and both parties therefore are in a position of saying that effectively, this appeal can only properly be dealt with if there is access to all the notes of evidence. This is a most unattractive course for this Court to have to take but having regard to the nature of the issues I accept Mr Archer's position which is that cherry-picking the evidence in a case of this sort would be calculated to lead to injustice. I would wish a copy of this Judgment to be given to the Learned Chairman, Mrs Donn as I would make it plain to her that I fully understand the difficulties that she will or may experience in complying with this my request for her notes of evidence in this matter. It was a hearing which lasted for 5 days.

There were some seven witnesses: three including the Applicant on behalf of the Applicant and four on behalf of the Respondents. All the notes of evidence in relation to all those witnesses save Mr Searle, who was one of the four Respondents' witnesses, are called for at this time, I recognise and fully understand at this time the inconvenience which this causes to her. I am sure that the Industrial Tribunal will accept that so far as I am concerned, the circumstances in which notes of evidence are called for are extremely limited. Having regard to the Order which was made by my colleague, it seems to me inescapable that an Order for notes of evidence should be made in this case and I would like to extend to her my regret at having to make this request. I will not make, formally, an Order at this time because I know that when the Employment Appeal Tribunal asks for notes of evidence, that request is properly respected. In the unlikely event that there was any difficulty, I would of course, then make an Order but I have no doubt that having read the terms of this Judgment Mrs Donn will happily, if not without considerable inconvenience, comply with this our request.