[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Selly v. Robert Bosch Ltd [1999] UKEAT 338_99_2306 (23 June 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/338_99_2306.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 338_99_2306

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MRS P HOLNESS (Friend)


 


JUDGE JOHN ALTMAN: This is an appeal from the refusal of an application for a review promulgated on 7 January 1999.

1. We have before us the Originating Application dated 25 April 1997. We have the Original Notice of Appearance of 11 June 1997. We do not have before us and the Employment Tribunal do not appear to have forwarded the original full decision of the Employment Tribunal at London North. Following that written decision, an application was made by the Appellant for a review in writing and we do not have forwarded to us a copy of that application for a review. It is not possible for us to assess the issue which faces us on a preliminary hearing namely whether there was an error of law in the refusal of the Chairman to grant a review such as to warrant this matter preceding to be heard in full before the Employment Appeal Tribunal without our seeing those documents.
2. The reasons for refusing the application which are specific to this case and not simply generalised, refer to what is described as being a failure to provide satisfactory answers to queries put by the Tribunal. We have had produced to us by the Appellant the following letters, those written by her to the Employment Tribunal dated 30 June, 13 July and 23 December 1998 and 4 January 1999. We have also seen the letters from the Employment Tribunal to the Appellant dated 21 July, 25 September, 20 October and 16 December 1998. It is apparent, and we are told that there was other correspondence during that time between the Appellant and the Employment Tribunal additional to those letters, and secondly that there was correspondence between the Employment Tribunal and the Respondents. We have a letter dated 3 December 1998 from the Respondents to the Employment Tribunal, which on the face of it discloses that this matter was at some stage actually listed for a review hearing. We also have a copy of a letter dated 4 January 1999 from the Respondent's solicitors to the Employment Tribunal. We do not have any other correspondence.
3. If there are letters in addition to those to which I have referred, which passed between the parties and the Employment Tribunal after the date that the original decision was promulgated then it would be helpful if those copies could be forwarded from the office of the Employment Tribunal for this matter to be relisted. To summarise therefore: correspondence between the Appellant and the Tribunal during that period other than those to which I have referred; copy of correspondence between the Employment Tribunal and the Respondents other than those to which I have referred; thirdly the original decision of the Employment Tribunal and fourthly the application for a review.
4. Finally it has been said that there is additional evidence, which forms the basis of the application for review. We have had presented to us the documentary evidence that is referred to, not the statement of any witness that is proposed to be called in support of it. We were also told that the original application for review referred to the Appellant suffering from reactive depression as one of the relevant pieces of additional material. To that extent it will no doubt be helpful to the Employment Appeal Tribunal if a medical report to support that as the additional evidence which would be proposed to be called could be made available for the next hearing by the Appellant. Accordingly we direct that this matter be adjourned for the obtaining of those documents and for the relisting of this matter as a preliminary hearing on the first available date.