Appeal No.	EAT/1365/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 28 January 1998

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR R N STRAKER
MRS P TURNER OBE

MR A MURGAI	APPELLANT

HOME OFFICE IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY DIRECTORATE	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR C RAWLINGS
(of Counsel)
Ashok Patel & Co
254 Balham High Road
London
SW17 7BD	

	JUDGE PETER CLARK:     This matter comes before us today for a preliminary hearing and directions to determine first, whether or not the case should proceed to a full appeal hearing and, if so, on what grounds and secondly, to give all necessary consequential directions.

	The position we find ourselves in this morning is this.  First, Mr Rawlings’ skeleton argument arrived this morning rather than seven days in advance of the hearing as required by our Practice Direction.  He has explained and we accept from him that the delay has been caused by Mr Murgai’s difficulties in obtaining funding for his legal representation.

	The second problem that we face is that this morning a 149 page affidavit with exhibits arrived at the Appeal Tribunal for use at today’s hearing.  It is an affidavit sworn by Mr Murgai on 22 January 1998.  It was sent by his Solicitors in the DX on that day.  The intention was that it should be directed to this Tribunal.  In fact it went to the wrong destination and was then sent back, it would seem, to the Appellant’s Solicitors and finally arrived here this morning.

	There is only one copy of that affidavit and exhibits.  My colleagues have not yet had an opportunity to look at it at all.  I have had a very brief opportunity to do so and I discover that it refers to an amended Notice of Appeal for which leave to amend is sought, an application to introduce new evidence which was not before the Industrial Tribunal at the Appeal Hearing and further, an application for the production of the Chairman’s Notes of Evidence.

	The third point which strikes us is that, in the Respondent’s PHD form the Respondent indicates that this appeal raises an arguable point of law.  We would like to know from the Respondent which ground or grounds in the Notice of Appeal they concede raise arguable points of law.  

	In these circumstances we direct that the proposed amended Notice of Appeal be sent in copy form to the Respondent and the Respondent is directed, within 14 days, to indicate precisely which grounds it accepts raise arguable points of law.

	The sum total of this state of affairs is that we are, all of us, quite satisfied that we cannot do justice to this case today and accordingly this preliminary hearing will have to be adjourned.  I direct that it comes back before me, although not necessarily sitting with the same members.