Appeal No.	 EAT/829/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 16 September 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR L D COWAN
LORD GLADWIN OF CLEE CBE JP

MR G WILLIAMS	APPELLANT

SOUTHSIDE PARTNERSHIP	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR D CARRINGTON
(of Counsel)
Civil Rights (UK)
The Legal Consultancy 
1st Floor
Mandela Rooms
New Justice House
411A Brixton Road
London SW9 8DG	
For the Respondents	MR K J CADOO
(Employment Law Consultant)
Chestnut Cottage
Boughton Malherbe
Maidstone
Kent ME17 2BD	

	JUDGE PETER CLARK:	This appeal was listed for a full hearing before us, pursuant to the order of a division of this Tribunal presided over by Judge Altman sitting at a preliminary hearing on 17 December 1998.

As a result of the oral argument which we heard today from Mr Carrington and Mr Cadoo, a number of matters have arisen which require further investigation.  They are as follows.

In the judgment given by Judge Altman at the preliminary hearing reference is made at pages 3 D - 4 F to certain submissions made by Mr Carrington, on behalf of the Appellant, at that hearing in relation to specific matters of discovery and specific matters relating to witness orders.

It seems to us that those specific matters arose for the first time at the preliminary hearing.  They were not dealt with in the affidavit evidence filed by and on behalf of the Appellant prior to the preliminary hearing and consequently no comments were received from the Chairman on those matters.

We do not feel able to properly dispose of this appeal without such comments.  Accordingly, we have adjourned the appeal and direct that a copy of Judge Altman’s judgment be sent to the Chairman, together with a copy of this judgment and a copy of a further affidavit to be filed by the Appellant within the next 28 days, dealing with the specific matters raised in relation to discovery and witness orders at pages 3 D – 4 F of Judge Altman’s judgment.  The affidavit will not go beyond those matters save for the purpose of exhibiting a psychiatrist’s letter referred to during the course of the hearing today which Mr Cadoo tells us he cannot recall having been in evidence below.  Two further matters have arisen.  

	First, at pages 12 to 13 of the EAT bundle is a document headed “Request of Adjournment” and purportedly signed by Sharon Jones and dated 9 March 1998.  Ms Jones represented Mr Williams at the start of this Tribunal hearing but withdrew on the first morning.  A question has arisen as to the authenticity of that document and, in particular, whether it was put before the Tribunal on the first day of the hearing, 9 March 1998 by Ms Jones.

In these circumstances we require an affidavit from Sharon Jones within the next 28 days, deposing as to the genuineness of that document and dealing with the question as to whether or not she says that she handed it to the Tribunal on 9 March 1998.  

	The next matter is that a dispute has arisen over the status of certain statements, purportedly made by clients of the Respondent in relation to the Appellant.  Again, we are told by Mr Cadoo that those documents formed part of the Respondent’s bundle before the Tribunal.  Copies of those documents should be submitted in bundle form to the Tribunal for our use within 28 days.  

	Finally, at the start of this hearing Mr Carrington applied for an adjournment of the appeal hearing, so that he could have an opportunity to listen to tape recordings of certainly four days of the proceedings before the Employment Tribunal.  We refused that application at the start of the day.  However, for quite different reasons this appeal hearing has not been completed today.

We make no further order in relation to those tapes, no order having been made at the preliminary hearing by Judge Altman’s Tribunal.

If the Appellant or his representatives have an opportunity to listen to the tape and wish to rely upon any part of the tape recording or any transcript of those tapes, then application should be made in writing to me for further directions in relation to those tape recordings and their use at this resumed appeal hearing, not less than 21 days before the date fixed for the resumed hearing.  As to that resumed hearing, it will be listed for one full day before the same Tribunal sitting today.