Appeal No.	 EAT/1094/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 17 February 1997

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
MR P M SMITH
MISS D WHITTINGHAM

MR A GENTLE & OTHERS	APPELLANTS

PERKINS GROUP LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR S ROBINSON 
(One of the Appellants in person)

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):   Bearing in mind that there is a full appeal due to be heard against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal which was given on 3rd March 1993, on 11th March 1997, it seems to us that it would be sensible that at the hearing of that appeal, as a subsidiary and secondary point, the employees should be entitled to argue their appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal which disallowed their application for a review of the original decision. That decision of the tribunal was given on 14th August 1996.

	We do not wish to encourage the employees to believe that there is any particular merit in their prospective appeal against the refusal to conduct a review. That is a matter which will have to be investigated by the new Division of the Employment Appeal Tribunal which will go into the matter with greater care than we have.

	In relation to the other two appeals, these are, I think, very much subsidiary matters, that is the decision of the Industrial Tribunal that their proceedings be held in public except in relation to evidence which is likely to consist of information which has been communicated in confidence; and, their decision to set aside the witness order issued on Detective Sergeant Meehan. It seems to us that neither of those two appeals raise any arguable point of law that is sufficiently alive and kicking to merit a full hearing before another Division of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and we consider we can appropriately dismiss those two appeals, leaving the substantive appeal against the original decision together with the appeal against the tribunal’s refusal to grant a review of their first decision. 

	The hearing is on 11th March 1997, it is important therefore that the employers be notified immediately of the fact that added to that appeal will be the review matter; and accordingly they should be invited within seven days to file a further respondent’s notice, if they wish to do so, to deal with this secondary appeal. We see no reason why the date for the hearing on 11th March 1997 should be vacated as a result of this development. Logically, we imagine that the Employment Appeal Tribunal will take the appeal first and if that fails, will move on to consider the question of the Industrial Tribunal’s failure to conduct a review. To that extent, of  these three matters, one is allowed to go for a full hearing, the other two are dismissed.