 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Duffy v Northumbria Police Authority [1996] UKEAT 1114_95_2904 (29 April 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/1114_95_2904.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 1114_95_2904 |
||
[New search] [Help]
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE Q.C.
MISS A MADDOCKS OBE
MR A D SCOTT
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MRS DAPHNE LOEBL
(of Counsel)
Messrs Samuel Phillips & Co
Solicitors
86 Pilgrim Street
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
NE1 6SR
For the Respondents MR PAUL CAPE
(of Counsel)
Mr R M Kelly
Deputy Clerk and Solicitor
Northumbria Police Authority
Civic Centre
Gateshead
Tyne & Wear
NE8 1HH
JUDGE HARGROVE Q.C.: This is, to put it mildly, unfortunate. The appellant's solicitors wrote as long ago as on 18th December 1995 a letter which contained these words:
" The EAT has given liberty to apply to the Industrial Tribunal Chairman's Notes of Evidence, if necessary. Would you please consider the attached Grounds of Appeal and indicate whether there is anything regarding the evidence contained in them with which you disagree. if there is, we can apply for the relevant parts of the Chairman's Notes."
No reply was given to that. The appellant decided that that silence meant assent. They bore in mind the fact that Chairman's Notes should not be sought in a widespread fashion so as to cause undue strain upon the system. Their request was wholly reasonable.
The difficulties arise today. The respondents take the view that they are entitled to say that there are matters at the tribunal which support findings of fact which are challenged by the appellant and are clearly meant to challenged in the final paragraph of the letter of 18th December 1995.
We have considered this matter with some care. We have decided that the only way in which this matter can go forward is that there should be an order for the Chairman's Notes. This will mean delay and expense, and there is nothing we can do about delay. What we do intend to do is to address ourselves to the question of costs.
JUDGE HARGROVE Q.C.: We have reached the conclusion that this is a matter which comes within those special grounds when we can grant costs. We do not intend to reserve the costs. We intend to order that the costs of first of all of today be granted to the appellant in any event. We shall, however, reserve the costs of the transcript to the further hearing. It is possible that that is a matter which will have greater clarity then.