[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Gibbins v. Merthyr Tydfil Football Club [2000] UKEAT 403_00_1304 (13 April 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/403_00_1304.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 403_00_1304, [2000] UKEAT 403__1304

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MISS H HILL (of Counsel) Messrs George Davies Solicitors Fountain Court 68 Fountain Street Manchester M2 2FB
For the Respondents	THE RESPONDENTS NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: This is an appeal by the applicant against a decision of a Chairman, communicated by letter dated 6th April 2000, sitting at Cardiff, refusing the applicant's application for, among other things, discovery of documents by the respondent, Merthyr Tydfil Football Club 1997 Ltd.

1. These proceedings were started by an Originating Application dated 22nd December 1999 in which the applicant claimed damages for wrongful dismissal and breach of contract. He alleges that he was employed as part-time manager by the respondent football club from 10th March 1999 until his summary dismissal on 5th October 1999.
2. The principal issue between the parties, the claim being resisted, is whether or not he was employed under a fixed term contract for two years, if he was not so employed, what is the proper length of notice to which he was entitled under the contract, and finally, the respondent alleges that, in any event, they were entitled to dismiss him summarily for cause.
3. The Notice of Appearance is dated 3rd February 2000. On 22nd March 2000 the applicant's solicitors wrote to those acting for the respondent setting out a request for further and better particulars of the grounds of resistance, with which we are not concerned in this appeal, and asking for discovery of documents.
4. The background to the discovery matter is this. The applicant met with officers of the club on 12th March 1999 and it is common ground that at that meeting terms of his contract of employment were orally agreed. The club's solicitor, Mr Snowdin, was not present on that occasion.
5. It seems that at the end of May 1999 the applicant met with Mr Snowdin and was then promised a draft contract of employment in writing.
6. In August 1999 there was a further meeting between the applicant and two officers of the club, Mr Edwards and Mr Money. Again Mr Snowdin was not present, but the applicant was told that he would receive a draft contract of employment.
7. At meetings held on 7th, 9th and 12th August 1999, it is alleged, that Mr Edwards told the applicant that a letter of intent was being prepared by Mr Snowdin.
8. The application for discovery relates to Mr Snowdin's attendance notes confirming the matters to which we have just referred. It is said that the attendance notes are not privileged since they do not cover advice given in contemplation or furtherance of proceedings. Miss Hill urges on us that those attendance notes are vital in order to establish what were the orally agreed terms of the contract arising out of the meeting on 12th March 1999.
9. The Chairman's reason for refusing the application is put succinctly in this way:

"A chairman has refused the your [sic] request at this late stage."

10. Miss Hill accepts on the authority of this tribunal, Waite J presiding, in Medallion Holidays Ltd v Birch [1985] ICR 578 and in Adams and Raynor v West Sussex County Council [1990] IRLR 215, Wood J presiding, that our powers to intervene in appeals against interlocutory orders such as this are no different from our powers when dealing with a final determination by the tribunal, that is to say, our jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of law.
11. The point taken by Miss Hill in this appeal is that the solicitor's attendance notes are so vital to the proper determination of the case that the Chairman reached a perverse conclusion in declining to order discovery.
12. We have not heard from the respondent club, which does not appear today, nor has there been any substantive response by the respondent in correspondence to the original request for discovery made on 22nd March 2000.
13. We are not persuaded that Mr Snowdin's attendance notes, assuming that they exist, are as central to the case as Miss Hill submits. Even if they are, we think the Chairman was entitled to take into account the lateness of this application. This is not a final order and it is open to the applicant to renew his application for discovery at the substantive Employment Tribunal hearing which is fixed for Monday, 17th April 2000. Having considered the matter, we have concluded that there are no grounds in law for interfering with the Chairman's decision.
14. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. We would add only this, that if the application is to be renewed on Monday morning, then we think that the respondent's solicitor ought to have at the tribunal the relevant attendance notes, if any, with copies, so that if the renewed application is successful, then discovery and inspection can be given there and then and an adjournment of the proceedings will be rendered unnecessary.