[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Abbey National Plc v. Tiquin [1999] UKEAT 633_99_0907 (9 July 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/633_99_0907.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 633_99_907, [1999] UKEAT 633_99_0907

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR A LYNCH (OF COUNSEL) (Instructed by) Legal Services Abbey National PLC Genesis House 301-349 Midsummer Boulevard Milton Keynes MK9 2JE


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC: After a 6 day Hearing in Manchester between November 1998 and February 1999 the Employment Tribunal held, in proceedings commenced by Mrs M T Tiquin that she had been unfairly dismissed by Abbey National plc ("the Appellant"), that she was dismissed within the Section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act and that there had been unlawful discrimination as against her. From that decision the Appellant appealed by Notice dated 10^th April 1999. This is the Hearing under the PHD scheme.

1. The Extended Reasons of the Employment Tribunal which were sent to the parties on 31^st March 1999 do not record on their front sheet representation before the Employment Tribunal. Mr Lynch, for the Appellant today, tells us that he appeared for the Appellant at the Employment Tribunal; of course, we accept this, but it is helpful if appearances are shown on the first page of the Decision of a Tribunal. There is also an apparent error within the document which may or may not be crucial to any appeal where, at paragraph 4.26 on page 16, at the foot, reads "The papers sent to Mrs Fowler …". That is obviously a mistake either for Mr Fowler or Mrs Harper, which it would be convenient if it could be corrected.
2. The Application today took some 1¼ hours because, at the outset, all of us were of the opinion that the decision made was one which was open to the Employment Tribunal to reach on the evidence which was before it. However, Mr Lynch has satisfied us today that in some respects there are matters that should go to a Full Hearing.
3. At the core of the dispute is what happened at a meeting between the Respondent and the representatives of the Appellant at a meeting on 3^rd November 1997. Mr Lynch submits that the Employment Tribunal failed to make findings as to whether they accepted that Mrs Harper's contemporary note of the meeting was correct or not and the evidence before the Tribunal was that one side said it was right and the other side said it was wrong. The conclusion of the Employment Tribunal of that meeting is that there was a misunderstanding. Mr Lynch submits that no such suggestion was put to the parties or their Counsel either in cross-examination or in final submissions and it came as a "bolt from the blue" when it appeared in the decision.
4. We have been persuaded that there are other matters which may be errors of law which should be looked at by the full Tribunal. We are not, however, happy that the full Tribunal should be asked to consider the grounds under paragraph 6 of the Notice of Appeal, pages which do not succinctly identify the grounds of appeal on which an Appellant wishes to rely. Mr Lynch has, in the course of the Hearing, addressed us on those which can be found within the pages, but we think there should be a revision taking out the surplus wordage which does not concisely identify the grounds. That could be dealt with in one of two ways. It could be brought to us by Mr Lynch later for us today for us to say that this is an appropriate Notice of Appeal and on which, of course, the views of the Respondent would be able to comment before the matter came before Appeal, or alternatively, it could be dealt with in some other way about which we will now hear from Mr Lynch.
5. Mr Lynch has brought to us this afternoon a variation on the Notice of Appeal which, in our judgment, does not yet succinctly set out the grounds on which he wishes the Appeal to come before the Employment Appeal Tribunal in due course. We think it would be helpful for him and the Employment Appeal Tribunal if he could redraft the grounds in a more conventional form, so that anyone reading them can see succinctly why it is the Appellant says that the Employment Tribunal was wrong. He adumbrated his reasons before us today in such a way as we thought that it became arguable and we would wish an amendment to the Notice of Appeal would make those points more clear to the panel which will hear the Appeal. We would not like to end this PHD without saying that the fact that we have given the Appellant leave to go to a full hearing does not mean we think there is great strength in the Appellant's case but we are satisfied that there are arguable points. We would hope that bearing in mind that there has already been a 6 day hearing, it might be possible to avoid further litigation between the parties.
6. Unless the parties agree as to evidence received by the Employment Tribunal as to the meeting of 3^rd November 1997 the Chairman may be asked to provide his notes regarding that meeting in evidence from witnesses to be identified by the Appellant. The Appellant is to notify the Court within 4 weeks whether or not agreement has been reached, so that if necessary, a request can then be made to the Chairman for such notes.
7. Category C appeal. Estimated length ½ day to 1 day.