![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Petrides v. Direct Line Group Services Ltd [2001] UKEAT 0457_01_0905 (9 May 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0457_01_0905.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 0457_01_0905, [2001] UKEAT 457_1_905 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal | |
Before
SIR CHRISTOPHER BELLAMY QC
MR P M SMITH
MR R N STRAKER
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
INTERLOCUTORY HEARING
For the Appellant | MR PETRIDES (the Appellant in person) |
For the Respondent | MISS ALISON RUSSELL (of Counsel) Messrs Argles Stoneham Burstows Solicitors Stoneham House 17 Scarbrook Road Croydon Surrey CR0 1SQ |
SIR CHRISTOPHER BELLAMY QC
"The discovery there sought [that is to say a discovery of the files enumerated in the letter dated 27 March 2000] is wide ranging, extensive and in my view oppressive. It is not essential to the just disposal of the case and I consequently decline to make the Order."
"The Applicant also seeks Witness Orders to compel the attendance of some ten witnesses [I think on the basis of what I have just said, that is now reduced to about seven witnesses] including the Respondent's Chief Executive and Managing Director [that is a request that as I understand it is not being pursued at the moment] at the hearing to give evidence. He does not know what these witnesses would have to say. He merely wishes to cross examine them. He has already sought to ask questions of two of those witnesses namely Mrs A Glanville and Mr S Perkins. The Respondent has put the questions to both Mrs Glanville and Mr Perkins who have answered them and the Respondent has produced statements incorporating their answers to the Applicant. It is not the Respondent's intention to call them as witnesses. The witnesses who are being called by the Respondent can give direct evidence as to the matters to which Mrs Glanville and to a lesser extend Mr Perkins can testify. I will not compel the Respondent to call witnesses for that is a matter for them and their advisors. The only reason Mr Petrides seeks the attendance of these witnesses is to ask them questions. I carefully explained to him that any witnesses compelled to attend by a Witness Order issued at his request, cannot be cross examined by him. Mr Petrides was unable to state the relevance of the witnesses whom he intended to call ……[I leave out a short passage]. I therefore decline to make any orders compelling witnesses to attend because the relevance of their evidence was not made out. The witnesses will not come voluntarily; the Applicant does know what the witnesses will say and merely seeks to secure their attendance for the purposes of cross examination despite what I explained to him. That cannot be right. All that this will achieve is to cause maximum disruption to the Respondent which is not the purpose of a Witness Order".
We have carefully examined that passage but we can find no error of law in the approach adopted by the learned chairman. The result therefore is that for the reasons we given this appeal is dismissed.