[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Newnham (t/a Dial-A-Rod Environment Services) v. Berry [2001] UKEAT 506_01_1511 (15 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/506_01_1511.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 506_1_1511, [2001] UKEAT 506_01_1511

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR OMAR MALIK of Counsel Instructed by: Messrs Roach Pittis Solicitors 62-66 Lugley Street Newport Isle of Wight PO30 5EU


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC

1. By an application to an Employment Tribunal received on 9 August 2000, made on her behalf by the Employment Law Centre, Ms L Berry ("the Respondent") complained of sexual harassment, constructive dismissal and said that she left because she was constructively dismissed.
2. The matter came before a Tribunal sitting at Southampton when there was a hearing on 25 and 26 January. On 13 February there was a discussion meeting on a date not shown at page 15 of the reserved Decision's Extended Reasons. The Tribunal held that the Respondent's claim for constructive dismissal and for a written statement of employment was dismissed on withdrawal by the Respondent at the commencement of the hearing. However they found that the Respondent's claim for sex discrimination succeeded and ordered there was to be a remedies hearing on 25 April 2001, unless in the meantime, the parties were able to reach agreement.
3. From the Decision, promulgated on 20 February 2001, the Respondent lodged a Notice of Appeal on 29 March 2001. Mr Malik, who appeared below, has appeared at this hearing. He appreciates the problems for an appellant who says that the Tribunal who has seen the witnesses and made a decision on what they have seen and heard and the difficulties in upsetting such a decision and he has referred us in that connection with the well known decision of a panel headed by Mummery, J, then the President, in Stuart-v-Cleveland Guest (Engineering) Ltd.
4. Having looked at some of the details made in his complaint, we are satisfied that there is an arguable case to go forward but it is one that may have many problems for the Appellant and he should be well aware of the fact that if he loses this appeal, he may be - it is not for us to decide - at risk of the costs of the appeal.
5. Mr Malik has indicated to us that notes of evidence will be required from the Chairman because he says that certain of the findings were on matters on which there was no evidence. Before we ask for the Chairman's notes of the two day hearing, we think it would be desirable that the Appellant should ask the Respondent if admissions can be made on the matters on which the Chairman's notes will otherwise be sought and that the request should be made in reasonable time for the admissions to be given in, say, twenty eight days after the date of the request. If the admissions are not made, then and only then, should those parts of the Chairman's notes which are really required be sought by the Appellant.
6. This case would seem to fit into Category C, with an estimated time of half a day plus, it would seem to us, that the Notice of Appeal well sets out the matters which Mr Malik wishes to argue on behalf of the Appellant.