BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> J C Bell & Sons Coaches v Robertson [1995] UKEAT 560_94_0202 (2 February 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/560_94_0202.html Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 560_94_202, [1995] UKEAT 560_94_0202 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR T S BATHO
MISS A MADDOCKS OBE
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants IN PERSON
JUDGE LEVY QC: Mr Bell who is, I suspect, the owner of J.C. Bell & Sons Coaches ("a firm") wishes to appeal against a Decision of the Newcastle upon Tyne Industrial Tribunal, following a hearing on 18 March which was entered on 31 March, whereby it held that Mr Robertson was unfairly dismissed.
The grounds on which we understood today Mr Bell really wanted to make his appeal, are these. On the morning of the hearing, he was working on or underneath a vehicle when a telephone call came to say that the start of Mr Robertson's hearing was being delayed because he was not present. He got himself to the Tribunal as quickly as he could and told the Tribunal and his colleagues that he had not received formal notification of the hearing. He arrived at about 11.30 am.
From the Extended Reasons sent to the parties on 10 June 1994 (following an application by Mr Bell for a review of the decision of the Tribunal), it is apparent that at the initial hearing there had been an investigation as to whether or not he had received the notice giving him the hearing date. Paragraphs 7 of the Extended Reasons state:
"We were not satisfied that Mr Bell had discharged the burden of proving that the notice of hearing was not served upon his firm. It is his duty as a partner to ensure that proper arrangements are made for the receipt and allocation of documents sent through the post".
We think that there is a point to go forward as to whether on that aspect of the case, the Tribunal was correctly satisfied at the original hearing and we will allow the appeal to go forward upon that preliminary point.
We think it would be helpful for the Chairman's notes of evidence to be obtained, if possible, on the preliminary point and we think it would be sensible for Mr Bell, if possible, to prepare an amended Notice of Appeal, limited to the points which we have indicated to him are arguable.
In the course of his submissions this morning, Mr Bell has told us that since the hearing before the Industrial Tribunal, he has learned that a criminal court has convicted a postman of offences and that conviction may be relevant to the question as to whether the letter containing the notice of the hearing date was delivered to his firm. It is a matter for Mr Bell to consider whether on appeal he wishes to seek leave to adduce further evidence. If he wishes to make such an application we express the hope that in the near future, he seeks advice about what steps are appropriate and then follows that advice.
