[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc v Banjo [1998] UKEAT 568_98_2804 (28 April 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/568_98_2804.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 568_98_2804

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR T CROXFORD (of Counsel) Messrs Baker & McKenzie Solicitors 100 New Bridge Street London EC4V 6JA
For the Respondent	MR D GRINDALL (Solicitor)


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): In this case we have dismissed the appeal. It follows, therefore, that the hearing before the Industrial Tribunal is going to take place commencing on 5th May 1998. That is a Tuesday immediately following a Bank Holiday. It is clear from what we have been told that there is still a considerable amount of work to be done by the parties in preparing themselves for the hearing. Accordingly, I have encouraged them to discuss with the Employment Appeal Tribunal what outstanding matters there are and how best the hearing can be facilitated.

The parties agree that it would be a sensible case for the exchange of written witness statements. It is unlikely that this exchange can take place earlier than first thing on Tuesday morning, that is the day when the hearing is due to commence.

In relation to documentation, it is the parties' intention to exchange documents as at the end of Thursday, and to indicate one to another which witnesses they are hoping to call when the case comes on for hearing. The witness statements will, if the documentation has been agreed by the Thursday evening, be able to cross-refer to the paginated bundles of documents which will greatly facilitate the task of the Industrial Tribunal.

It seems to us that the Industrial Tribunal, who ultimately control their own procedure, might be assisted if they were to take the first of the hearing days as a reading day, that is to read the witness statements and the relevant parts of the agreed bundles of documents. That will mean that they will be in a position when the case starts the following day to be fully informed as to all the issues of fact which arise in the case.

It seems to us that if that course is followed, as we would recommend, the Industrial Tribunal might well think it unnecessary and undesirable that the witnesses when they come to give evidence should be required to read their witness statement. The parties will ensure that copies of the witness statements are made available for the press. There will therefore be no need, from that point of view, for the witness to be required to read their witness statement. And if there is any question as to whether the witness, him or herself, has written the witness statement, that can be resolved by question and answer by the representatives of the parties and/or by the Industrial Tribunal themselves. Accordingly, it would greatly facilitate the hearing of this case if the Industrial Tribunal were prepared to take the witness statements as read and not to require the witness to read it.

There is good will between the solicitors to the parties which is admirable. We have no doubt that, with their assistance, this case can be determined in an orderly, efficient and just manner. We have no doubt that the Industrial Tribunal will adapt their procedure so as to ensure that this objective is met.