Appeal No.	EAT/1107/99
EAT/1108/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 15 February 2000

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHARLES
(AS IN CHAMBERS)

EAT/1107/99
ICTS (UK) LTD                                                     - v - 	APPELLANT
MR B TCHOULA	RESPONDENT

EAT/1108/99
MR B TCHOULA                                                  - v - 	APPELLANT
ICTS (UK) LTD	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For:
ICTS (UK) LTD

	MR S RITCHIE
(of Counsel)
Instructed By:
Mr J Zucker
Messrs Roiter Zucker
Regent House
5-7 Broadhurst Gardens
Swiss Cottage
London NW6 3RZ	

For:
MR B TCHOULA

IN PERSON	

MR JUSTICE CHARLES:	These appeals come before me for directions pursuant to the order made by this Tribunal on 13 December 1999, being assisted by the provision of a list of issues for directions hearing prepared on behalf of the Company and the discussions between Mr Tchoula and Mr Ritchie, who appeared on behalf of the Company before matters came on for hearing this morning.

1	During the course of the hearing we have gone through the list and have made a number of alterations.  I have directed, and Mr Ritchie has agreed, that he will incorporate those alterations into a typed-up draft.  He will send that draft to me.  I will check it.  I am satisfied that it records the additions we have discussed properly and, by that I mean that the meaning and effect of the additions reflects what we discussed rather than each word is identically the same.  I will sign it.  The copy will then be sent to Mr Tchoula as approved by me.  He will have the opportunity, if he wishes, to raise any points on that draft and initially he is to do so by letter to this Tribunal, which will be sent on to me, and I will give such further directions as appropriate in the light of that letter.  I say now that I sincerely hope that such correspondence will not be necessary.  I do not anticipate that it will.

2	In reflection of the approach adopted on the preliminary hearing, I have directed that a capsule paragraph should be included in the directions given which relates back to paragraph 15 of the judgment of this Tribunal on the preliminary hearing.  As is apparent from that judgment, given the overlap of issues between the two appeals, I have not gone through the issues today seeking to identify whether, in my judgment, some of them are not reasonably arguable.  I am doubtful whether I would have jurisdiction to do that sitting alone.  It was not the approach adopted by the full Tribunal when it dealt with this matter by way of preliminary hearing.

3	Both sides have indicated before me that there are parts of the issues which they respectively regard as ones that are not reasonably arguable.  The capsule is intended to catch those issues which will be reflected potentially in an award for costs made by this Tribunal at the end of the day.

4	I would however add this comment:  that it seems to me that they are the sort of points that, if they are to be raised at all before this Tribunal at the full hearing, should be raised after the substantive arguments have been dealt with, or possibly in reaction to a question made by the Tribunal as to how seriously a particular point is being pursued.

5	One of the directions I have made is to give the Company leave (and I do not think I specified a time but I will now) within 21 days to identify, by reference to the Notice of Appeal put in by Mr Tchoula, any issues of fact which the Company disputes, identifying that issue and what the Company says the correct position is.  

6	At this stage it seems to me that it is unlikely that the Tribunal hearing this appeal would be assisted by Notes of Evidence even if the dispute between the parties is that or other of them is asserting that something was said in evidence which the other denies.  It seems to me at present that the relevance of the exercise, which I have given leave to the Company to perform, is to identify for the purposes of the full hearing a dispute as to evidence or the interpretation of evidence before the Employment Tribunal, so that this Tribunal can consider against that background whether it was necessary, or appropriate, for the Employment Tribunal to refer to and / or resolve that dispute in assessing the award of damages it made and in giving its reasons for that award.

7	This Tribunal would never embark upon the fact finding exercise itself.  Therefore, in short, the point I have just made is that the exercise I have directed is to identify the area of any dispute.  The liberty to apply will cover any application that either side thinks fit to make for the production of Notes of Evidence.

8	I will direct that if any party wishes to make such an application they must do so.  I shall direct that the Company put in that document by Monday, 6 March 2000 and that any application for Notes of Evidence must be made before close of business on Friday, 10 March 2000.