[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Johnstone v Crowhurst & Partners [1993] UKEAT 224_93_2903 (29 March 1993) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/224_93_2903.html Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 224_93_2903

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

BAILII case number: [1993] UKEAT 224_93_2903

Appeal No. EAT/224/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 29th March 1993

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)

MR D A C LAMBERT

MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP

---

MRS P JOHNSTONE          APPELLANT

CROWHURST & PARTNERS          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR E W JOHNSTONE

(Husband)

For the Respondents MR B TAYLOR

(Personnel Officer)

A W Personnel Group

Unit 12

Brunel Centre

Newton Road

Manor Royal

Crawley

West Sussex

RH10 2TU


 


MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by Mr Johnstone on behalf of his wife, as we understand it, against a refusal of a learned Chairman to produce certain documents for a Review hearing, which takes place tomorrow morning.

The history is rather a long one. Mrs Johnstone brought proceedings against a partnership, Crowhurst and Partners who are Veterinary Surgeons, alleging constructive dismissal.

The hearing took place before an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Ashford in Kent on four days during the Autumn of 1992. It was ultimately dismissed. The dismissal is promulgated and therefore dated the 18th December 1992. An application has been made for Review and that is to be heard.

Mr Johnstone, before us, complains that he had been asking for a sight of wages books and tax deduction cards over a period of time during his wife had been employed by the partnership. She had in fact been working there since 1983. There came a time when she was promoted, or her job description changed and she received an increased increment. She lost her case on the constructive dismissal. She also lost her case alleging that she was due some holiday pay. Presumably both those matters will be the subject of the Review tomorrow. Mr Johnstone complains bitterly that he has never been allowed to see the wages books or the tax deduction cards, for which he had asked on a number of occasions. The learned Chairman has refused to order it, before the Review hearing tomorrow, but if in fact during the Review hearing the matters become relevant no doubt they will be available in any event so that he can deal with any issue as it arises. The sole point for us at this juncture is whether he was wrong to refuse to order the documentation before the hearing tomorrow and whether that refusal was a proper exercise of his discretion. We do not propose to review the law on these matters, it is for us to decide whether in reaching that decision the learned Chairman was in breach of the Wednesbury rules.

Mr Taylor, who represents the partnership, very helpfully says that he will have the relevant P11 available tomorrow for which Mr Johnstone asked, that is one part of his request. We do not seek an undertaking we accept that it will be there. So far as the wages books are concerned we have little doubt that they will be available also in case the learned Chairman wishes to refer to them, for the sake of putting them in a suitcase and taking them along, that will no doubt be available, again we do not make any order. It is quite clear here that there is no justification for this appeal and it is dismissed.