[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Stubbings v Ministry Of Defence [1999] UKEAT 1393_98_1203 (12 March 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1393_98_1203.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1393_98_1203

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR CHAPMAN of Counsel (ELAAS) MR PC STUBBINGS Ministry of Defence Police HQ HMNB Portsmouth Hampshire PO1 3LH


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC: This is an appeal by Mr Stubbings against the decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at Plymouth on 29 September 1998.

At this preliminary ex-parte hearing of his appeal, the Appellant had the advantage of representation by Mr Chapman of Counsel under the Employment Law Appeal Advisory Scheme. It was apparent to the members of this panel from perusal of the Extended Reasons of the Employment Tribunal Plymouth which was sent to the parties on 1 October 1998 that at the hearing there was one issue before them. The hearing took place because by an earlier decision in January of that year the Tribunal had given the parties leave for further argument to be heard at a later date. The issue then to be resolved was whether a document produced to the Tribunal was a document which sufficiently provided under Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Applicant's terms and conditions of employment. Having looked at the document produced, the Tribunal determined the issue in favour of the Respondent.

Mr Chapman, on behalf of Mr Stubbings, attempted to open matters which had been before the Tribunal not in September but at the earlier hearing in January. When we had pointed out to him that the issues determined in January were not the subject of the present appeal, at the Chairman's request, there was an adjournment to enable him to take instructions from Mr Stubbings. After having taken instructions, Mr Chapman told us on instructions that Mr Stubbings wished to withdraw his appeal. We think that if the instructions came following his advice, it was a proper course for Mr Chapman to advise Mr Stubbings to take and a proper course for Mr Stubbings to take. In the circumstances, we will permit this appeal to be withdrawn.