[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Turner Coulston (A Firm) v. Janko [2000] UKEAT 1394_99_2607 (26 July 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/1394_99_2607.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 1394_99_2607

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR T JOSEPHS (Solicitor) Instructed By: Turner Coulston 29 Billing Road Northampton NN1 5DQ
For the Respondent	IN PERSON


 


MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT): I have before me this afternoon, for Directions, the case Mrs M.E. Janko against Turner Coulston, a firm of Solicitors and Mrs Janko's former employers.

1. The matter was last in front of me on 18 April 2000 when there were two preliminary hearings and in the course of the preliminary hearings a third matter arose as a cross-appeal. So there are at the moment three things running in harness. On that day, of course, the matter was ex parte as preliminary hearings, but it was even then thought that the parties might differ between themselves as to what issues would be relevant on the appeal.
2. However, what were ostensibly ex parte hearings were, in fact, inter partes because Mrs Janko was present in order to present her cross appeal and so, even though it was a preliminary hearing, the EAT had the benefit of both sides being in front of us. And even then it was apparent that there were going to be quite severe differences between the parties as to the further conduct of the case. I sought to devise a system under which issues would be separated out so that I could then take an informed view of which Chairman's Notes, which notes of which witnesses, were properly required. Unfortunately, since then there has been quite a considerable correspondence between the parties which has not greatly contributed to clarification of issues.
3. That correspondence, no doubt, has helped the parties to some extent but it has not truly resolved which parts of the evidence are parts as to which the notes will be necessary and I had it in mind today to give quite particular directions for the identification of issues and, alongside a numbering and a description of the issues, a specification of precisely which witness was a witness of whose oral evidence notes were to be required. But, as we worked through the possibilities, it occurred to me and became apparent that the parties are so far apart in their approach to matters that quite a lot of time and money therefore would be spent on a description of issues and a description of the Notes of Evidence needed and that, at the end of that passage of time and expenditure of money, the likelihood, not improbably, would be that the Chairman's Notes of either all oral evidence would have been sought or something very close to it and, moreover, some of the arguments are likely to be that there was no evidence at all of this subject or that, which is a matter which can only truly be maintained as an argument if either of the parties agree (and here I will not say they are at loggerheads but they are not close and that agreement is difficult) or if one has notes of everything.
4. It was a four-day case below and not all of the four days would have been taken up by witnesses, so the matter is not an extreme case and, although I am reluctant to trouble Mr Robjant, the Chairman, I fear that anything short of the totality of the notes of oral evidence will prove to be insufficient for one reason or another and accordingly, I will see to it that a request is made to Mr Robjant together with a transcript of this judgment explaining why it is and asking for all his notes of the oral evidence at the Tribunal.
5. The only other direction I am asked to give today is in relation to the estimate of time and, at the moment, the matter is listed for half a day but I think it not unrealistic for both sides now to recognise that more than that is likely to prove necessary. Mrs Janko fears that even a day might be insufficient and there is some small element of risk in saying a day, but, for all that, it seems to me that it should be capable of being dealt with in a day and accordingly, the time estimate will be one day. I hope that no further oral directions hearing is necessary and that the matter can now proceed to a day's hearing as soon as practicable after the notes of all the evidence have been received from the Chairman.