Alstom Traction Ltd v. Birkenhead & Ors [2002] UKEAT 1131_00_1501 (15 January 2002)

BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Alstom Traction Ltd v. Birkenhead & Ors [2002] UKEAT 1131_00_1501 (15 January 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1131_00_1501.html
Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1131__1501, [2002] UKEAT 1131_00_1501

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


BAILII case number: [2002] UKEAT 1131_00_1501
Appeal No. EAT/1131/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 15 January 2002

Before

MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC

MS B SWITZER

PROFESSOR P D WICKENS OBE



ALSTOM TRACTION LIMITED APPELLANT

STEPHEN BIRKENHEAD & OTHERS RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

© Copyright 2002


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant JOHN HAND QC
    Instructed by:
    Messrs Nightingales
    Solicitors
    127 Buxton Road
    High Lane
    Stockport
    Cheshire SK6 8DX
    For the Respondents TIMOTHY BRENNAN QC
    Instructed by:
    Messrs Rowley Ashworth
    Solicitors
    247 The Broadway
    Wimbledon
    London SW19 1SE


     

    MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC

  1. In this matter it was discovered by Ms Switzer, one of the Industrial Members last night when she reviewed the papers that she had by reason of the formation of AMICUS by the amalgamation of two predecessor unions in January that she was a member of the union which stands behind the employees in the present case.
  2. We informed Mr Hand who appears for the Appellant employer of this at the outset of today's hearing. He took instructions. Understandably he made the application that the appearance of bias through interest was such that he regrettably did not think that it was right that the hearing could or should be determined by this panel as presently constituted. We think that objection is well founded and propose to accede to it. We are comforted in that by the fact that Mr Brennan who appears for the employees does not seek to dissuade us from that course, indeed recognises its force.
  3. Notwithstanding the inconvenience, which is regretted, to the parties who have come some distance, we have no alternative but to stand the hearing over to a freshly constituted panel on a date convenient to the parties. There is no other lay member available, and the panel had discussed generally some of the points which arise such that it would not be proper for us to continue on our own even if that were acceptable to the parties.
  4. We understand that a date convenient to all is 17 June this year, with a time estimate of 1 day.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1131_00_1501.html