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

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Morrison v. Hesley Lifecare Service [2003] UKEAT 0262_03_0406 (4 June 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2003/0262_03_0406.html
Cite as: [2003] UKEAT 0262_03_0406, [2003] UKEAT 262_3_406

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

BAILII case number: [2003] UKEAT 0262_03_0406
Appeal No. EAT/0262/03

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 4 June 2003

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE J MCMULLEN QC

MR T HAYWOOD

MRS M T PROSSER


MR I N MORRISON APPELLANT

HESLEY LIFECARE SERVICE RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant MR I N MORRISON
    (the Appellant in Person)
       


     

    HIS HONOUR JUDGE J McMULLEN QC

  1. At a Preliminary Hearing of the Applicant's case we have decided to take the unusual step, pursuant to the approach enjoined in English v Emery Reinbold [2002] 1 WLR 2409 and ask the Tribunal for its finding and reasons in relation to one set of matters.

  2. The Originating Application in Box 11 sets out the basis of the Applicant's claim to have made protected disclosures from 28 November 2000. The Tribunal in its Reasons begins the examination of the claim with an alleged protected disclosure on 8 January 2001. It makes findings under the Employment Rights Act 1996, section 43 and onwards, based upon a number of alleged protected disclosures, during the course of 2001.

  3. The Tribunal was bound to have considered the Applicant's claim. We are told today by the Applicant, whose advocate withdrew during the Employment Tribunal hearing, that live evidence may not have been adduced in respect of the period from 28 November 2000. If that was the reason for the Tribunal's, as we see it, apparent lack of findings in relation to his period, we would invite it to say so and to also say what material it had and what it considered in relation to the Applicant's claim for protected disclosures during the period 28 November 2000 to 8 January 2001. When the Tribunal does provide that further material we will reconvene and the Applicant will have an opportunity again to deal with the matters.

  4. We will now revert to the standard Preliminary Hearing direction and that includes giving the Respondent the opportunity to make submissions in opposition. We will give that direction and will formally give the direction about the use of new material.

  5. We now make clear that this case is concerned only with the Protected Information Disclosure Act 1998 aspect of the complaint.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2003/0262_03_0406.html