[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Amity Insulation Services Ltd v. Lutener [1999] UKEAT 426_99_2607 (26 July 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/426_99_2607.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 426_99_2607

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR D PANESAR (OF COUNSEL) (Instructed by) Messrs D A Borland & Co Solicitors 24 Mill Street Eynsham Witney Oxford OX8 1JS


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC: This is the preliminary hearing of an Appeal by Amity Insulation Services Ltd ("the Appellant") from a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting in Reading on 23^rd November 1999 to hear a complaint made by Mr A J Lutener ("the Respondent").

1. The Appeal arises in these circumstances. By an Originating Application sent to an Employment Tribunal on 29^th July 1998, the Respondent complained that he was subject to a dismissal which was unfair in the sense that the behaviour of the Appellant made him leave his job because, in the course of his employment, he had had an affair with another member of the staff.
2. There was a hearing of the Respondent's complaint before a Tribunal at Reading on 23^rd November. At that hearing the Appellant was represented by a solicitor; the Respondent was in person. The decision was promulgated on 5^th February 1999. The Tribunal decided that the claim of the Respondent succeeded. From that decision there was an Appeal dated 17^th March 1999. Mr Panesar, in fluent submissions this morning, has submitted to us that fresh evidence should have to be introduced because, in the course of the hearing, evidence as to the Chairman of the Appellant's conduct towards the Respondent was given which had not been forecast in any witness statement exchanged prior to the hearing.
3. We have in our bundle of correspondence a letter from the Respondent to the Appellant dated 14^th July 1998 which accompanied the Originating Application. This makes clear that the Respondent was less than happy with the treatment which he had been receiving from the Chairman. In those circumstances, if the Respondent did not choose to call the Chairman as a witness to answer the allegations in the letter that is a matter for it. If, as Mr Panesar suggests, the evidence given by or on behalf of the Appellant went further than was expected from the witness statement, he cannot now complain. It was always open to the representative of the Appellant appearing at the hearing to seek an adjournment and there is no suggestion that was done.
4. This is not a case where the well known limited circumstances for fresh evidence to be admitted arise. There is, in our judgment, a decision made by the Employment Tribunal which it was well within its range to make on the evidence which was before it. This is a quite hopeless Appeal, we therefore, we dismiss it at this stage.