[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Gittins v Packard & ORD Ltd (t/a Marlborough Tiles) [1999] UKEAT 1448_98_1205 (12 May 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1448_98_1205.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1448_98_1205

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR N SMITH (OF COUNSEL) Instructed by Messrs Quiney Jagger Vectis Court 4-6 Newport Street Old Town Swindon Wiltshire SN1 3DX


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: This is an appeal by Mr Adrian Gittins, the Applicant before the Bristol Employment Tribunal against that Tribunal's decision promulgated with extended reasons on 6th October 1998, dismissing his complaint of unfair constructive dismissal. The Tribunal found that he was not dismissed by the Respondent, Packard & Ord Ltd, T/A Marlborough Tiles. During the course of the proceedings below the Appellant was represented by his father, Mr Graham Gittins, himself a former employee of the Respondent. It would appear that Mr Gittins Senior prepared the Notice of Appeal which is presently before us and dated 2nd November 1998. The case was listed for Preliminary Hearing before us today and on this occasion the Appellant is represented by Mr Smith of Counsel. It became clear to us during the course of Mr Smith's submissions that complaint was being made about the conduct of the proceedings below. Specifically, Mr Smith sought to argue that at the close of the evidence Mr Gittins Snr applied to call evidence to rebut evidence given by a Mrs Sprules, which evidence was accepted by the Tribunal and that application was refused.

Further, we are told that there is a complaint by Mr Gittins Snr that he was intimidated by the Chairman, Mr Sara. We reminded Mr Smith of para 9 of our Practice Direction which requires that allegations of procedural irregularity below must be pleaded in the Notice of Appeal and thereafter, the usual course is for a direction to be given by the Registrar for an affidavit or affirmation by the Appellant or his representative to be lodged in order that the Chairman's comments on those allegations may be obtained prior to the Preliminary Hearing. None of that has happened. The points to which we have referred do not appear in the Notice of Appeal and consequently, there is no affidavit, nor do we have the Chairman's comments.

In those circumstances Mr Smith applied for an adjournment of the Appeal in order that he could lodge draft Amended Grounds of Appeal and the necessary affidavit, so that the Chairman's comments in turn may be obtained and the matter then be relisted for hearing. We have acceded to that application and we direct that within 28 days of today's date the Appellant file draft Amended Grounds of Appeal and an affidavit in support marked for my attention. Copies of the Amended Grounds and the affidavit will then be sent to the Chairman for his comments. Once those comments are received, I shall give a further direction as to whether the matter is to be listed as a Resumed Preliminary Hearing or whether it can properly proceed to a full appeal hearing. On that basis, the appeal is adjourned.