Appeal No.	 EAT/177/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 20 June 2000

Before
MISS RECORDER ELIZABETH SLADE QC
MRS T A MARSLAND
MRS R A VICKERS

MR GRAHAM ATKIN	APPELLANT

1.	THE GOVERNORS OF THE GROVE PRIMARY SCHOOL  
2.	SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MRS ELIZABETH CAMPBELL
(lay Representative)
Bramble House
Mason Drive
Hook
Nr. Goole
East Riding of Yorkshire 
DN14 5NE	

RECORDER SLADE QC

1	We have before us for a preliminary hearing and the appeal of Mr Atkin decision of an Employment Tribunal dismissing his claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract against the Governors of the Grove Primary School and Surrey County Council.  There is before us a very lengthy Notice of Appeal raising grounds of appeal in 13 separate paragraphs.  Mrs Campbell on behalf of Mr Atkin has addressed us on those.  Our conclusion is that save for one ground of appeal, these grounds raise reasonably arguable points of law.

2	Before returning to those grounds I will deal briefly with the one which in our view does not raise an arguable point of law.  That is ground 6(10) in which the conclusion of the Tribunal that all the persons who gave evidence including the Applicant gave their evidence in an honest and truthful way is attacked.  That is an attack on paragraph 18 of the Tribunal’s decision

“At the outset, we must say that there has been relatively little conflict In the evidence given to us.  We find that all the persons who gave evidence to us, including the Applicant, gave their evidence in an honest and truthful way.”  

3	Mrs Campbell’s submissions to us on this ground of appeal are principally her contention that accounts given by witnesses before they came to the Tribunal, were contradictory.  What the passage which is attacked in ground 6(10) is directed to is the Tribunal’s assessment of the evidence that was given to it.  It was for the Tribunal to assess that evidence and the witnesses appearing before it.  We consider that there is no reasonably arguable point of law raised in ground 6(10).

4	As I have said in relation to the other grounds of appeal we consider that they raise reasonably arguable points of law.  However, we would strongly urge Mr Atkin and his advisers to seek professional assistance and direct that amended grounds of appeal be served on the Employment Appeal Tribunal within 21 days.  During the course of the hearing I gave certain indications to Mrs Campbell as to certain areas which could be condensed.  I would urge those who are preparing the amended grounds to direct their minds to focus on the specific points of law which are raised in the attacks which are made in the grounds of appeal before us.

5	So far as grounds 6.8 of the Notice of Appeal is concerned there will be a need for notes of evidence to be obtained.  We direct that Chairman’s notes of evidence be provided dealing with the point as to whether Mr Byrant, Mr Atkin’s solicitor, at the end of the appeal hearing said that he had been happy with the way in which the appeal had been conducted.

6	We also direct that there be exchange of skeleton arguments and lodging of those skeleton arguments with Employment Appeal Tribunal no later than 7 days before the date fixed for the hearing.  On the basis of what is said in the PDH form we anticipate that this hearing should take half a day.

7	Mr Atkin’s success at this preliminary hearing should not be taken as any indication of the ultimate prospects of success of this appeal.  Similarly the direction that amended grounds of appeal should be served should in no way be taken as any indication that an application for leave to amend to add new grounds would succeed.