 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Chilton v Ashford Borough Council [1996] UKEAT 1222_95_2703 (27 March 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/1222_95_2703.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 1222_95_2703 |
||
[New search] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLLAND
MR J A SCOULLER
MR S M SPRINGER
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MS MONAGHAN
(of Counsel)
E.L.A.A.S.
MR JUSTICE HOLLAND: This matter arises out of an application made by Mrs Shirley Chilton to an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Ashford, the respondent to the application being Ashford Borough Council. By way of that application she complained that she had been unfairly dismissed.
At the hearing of 18th October 1995, the decision of the tribunal was that that application be dismissed, the reasons for that decision being sent to the parties by way of extended reasons dated 2nd November 1995.
Mrs Chilton appeals from their decision. The matter has been listed before us this morning to decide whether the merits of the appeal are such that it should properly go forward for a full hearing this time with the respondents to the appeal, the respondents to the original application Ashford Borough Council represented.
Before us Mrs Chilton has had the considerable advantage of being represented by Ms Monaghan, who has put before us the unfortunate history of this matter as it presently appears from the documentation in the bundle which leads to submission by Ms Monaghan that there is a case that merits a full hearing, that case reflecting what she would submit was an injustice that arose because Miss Chilton, through her then representative Mr Strafford, was denied the opportunity to see the documents relating to comparators, and thereby to prepare and properly present her case to the tribunal.
Having looked at the documents put before us and having considered the Rules, we are entirely satisfied that this is a matter which should have the benefit of a full hearing so that the merits can be fully looked into, this time with the attendance and assistance of the respondents themselves.
In order to give effect to that decision arrived at today, we give these directions. We direct that the appellant by way of Mr Stafford her representative, should provide an affidavit within the next 14 days. That affidavit should be served on this tribunal and on the respondent Borough Council. By way of that affidavit Mr Strafford should set out his account of the history of this matter, and very importantly, his recollection as to what happened at the hearing of 18th October 1995, that is, as to what he is actually complaining about.
We further direct, that any responding affidavit that the respondents may wish to serve should be served upon this tribunal within the next ensuing 14 days. Thereafter we direct that the Chairman of the Ashford Industrial Tribunal should be invited to provide any comments that he may wish to make upon the such affidavits as are then before this tribunal.
The matter can then be relisted. We would direct that skeleton arguments be provided by the respective parties so as to arrive here at least seven days before the hearing.
We do not think we can assist the matter further, save to renew our gratitude to Ms Monaghan for the way she has helped us this morning.