Appeal No.	EAT/1290/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 14 January 1998

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR P A L PARKER CBE
MRS P TURNER OBE

THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE THAMES VALLEY POLICE	APPELLANT

MISS K KELLAWAY	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR A KORN
(of Counsel)
County Solicitor's Office
PO Box 189
Shire Hall
Shinfield Park
Reading
Berkshire
RG2 9DU	

	JUDGE PETER CLARK:     This is an appeal by the Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police against a majority decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Reading (the Chairman: Mr J A E Gorst being in the minority) upholding the respondent police officer’s complaint of unlawful sex discrimination and victimisation. Extended reasons for that decision, extending to some 27 closely typed pages are dated 22nd September 1997.

	This is a preliminary hearing held to determine whether or not the appeal should proceed to a full appeal hearing and if so, what directions ought now to be given.

	Having considered the detailed ground of appeal and skeleton argument prepared by Mr Korn and his oral submissions today, we think that the appeal should be fully argued inter partes. Further, we think that the appeal raises a point of general importance as to the formulation of a majority decision and reasons where the legally qualified Chairman is in the minority. 

	In these circumstances, we shall direct that this appeal proceed to a full appeal hearing to be listed in due course. We think the proper time estimate at this stage, having considered the PHD forms of both the appellant and the respondent is that the case should be listed on day 1 not before 11.30 a.m. to continue on the following day, that is a little under two days. 

	So far as directions are concerned, Mr Korn has in accordance with our practice, identified in the appellant’s PHD form by reference to specific subparagraphs of his Notice of Appeal, the names of the witnesses in respect of whose evidence Chairman’s notes are sought; and further has identified those parts of those witnesses’ evidence said to be necessary by reference to the individual grounds of appeal. We think that in the particular circumstances of this case that a direction ought to be given for Chairman’s notes in accordance with the particular application made. A copy of the Notice of Appeal together with that page in the appellant’s PHD form which deals with that application should be forwarded to the Chairman with a request that he provides extracts from his Notes of Evidence material to the specific complaints there raised.

	Next, the bundle for the appeal hearing. Mr Korn has indicated that it is the intention of the parties for Counsel to confer and if possible to agree a bundle for use at the full appeal hearing. We think that this is important. We understand that there were a good number of documents before the Industrial Tribunal in this lengthy case. It is essential that that documentation is paired down only to those documents which relate to the issues in this appeal. We specifically direct that a chronology should be prepared; that is normally the responsibility of the appellant, but it would be helpful if an agreed chronology could be prepared and lodged with skeleton arguments. The bundle as agreed should be lodged at this tribunal not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing, and skeleton arguments should similarly be lodged and exchanged. There are no further directions.