[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Lee v. Police Information Technology [2000] UKEAT 1270_00_3010 (30 October 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/1270_00_3010.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 1270__3010, [2000] UKEAT 1270_00_3010

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MS P DUFFAY (Representative) The Employment Law Advice Centre 22 St Edmunds Road Northampton NN1 5EH
For the Respondent	MR BRUCE CARR (of Counsel) Instructed by: Treasury Solicitors Queen Anne's Chambers 28 Broadway London SW1H 9JS


 


THE HONOURABLE LORD JOHNSTON

1. This is an appeal at the instance of the Appellant against an Order made by the Chairman of an Employment Tribunal at a preliminary stage of what is obviously a very complicated case in which he effectively ordered the Appellant to lodge what he described as a statement of her evidence in chief with certain conditions attached to what it should contain and how it should be set out.
2. The matter came before us because the Appellant is concerned, and it was so submitted on her behalf, that her hands were going to be unreasonably tied if the words 'evidence in chief' were to be set in stone when it came to the substance of the document that was to be produced, and thus create a prejudicial position perhaps exposing her to unfair cross examination or, perhaps more importantly than that, an inability to vary or lodge or depart from certain aspects of the matter being put forward. Ms Duffay made it perfectly clear to us that she would not try to hide anything by way of disclosure, but was concerned as to the consequences, that the phraseology of this document might have for her client.
3. Mr Carr made it very clear on behalf of the various Respondents against the background of what is a very complex case, that what the Chairman was trying to do was to embark upon a process of case management by reference to an Order requiring the Appellant or Applicant to set out the basis of her case. He submitted that his side of the bar had no difficulty with the phraseology that was used: it would not be intended to put any restrictions on any variation, substitution, alterations or deletions that might subsequently be made, but what was required however was a clear statement of the evidence that was liable to feature in the case. He told us in passing that in fact a very substantial document had already been handed over.
4. We will not interfere with this Order, but we will make it absolutely clear that we do not consider that it requires to be interpreted in such a way that the Appellant is fenced in by the phrase 'evidence in chief' to the extent of being unable to vary, delete or add to her evidential position as the case proceeds. In our view, what the Chairman was seeking to achieve is entirely laudable in the context of this case: the attitude of the Respondents is obviously wholly responsible to it, but in these circumstances, for the avoidance of doubt, this Court will simply make it clear how it expects this Order to be complied with and followed in future procedure, viz no unreasonable restriction to be imposed on the development of the Appellant's case
5. There was a supplementary point about whether it was fair that material should be set out in chronological order, but as we have said already, we consider that the contents of the document and its substantial forms are no more than what could be regarded as good housekeeping for the case management of what is a complicated case at an initial stage. In these circumstances we will not allow the appeal but simply allow this particular note to be put up in the process to indicate how we expect this Order to be complied with.