Appeal No.	 EAT/607/97
		 EAT/297/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 24 April 1998

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR D CHADWICK
MR P R A JACQUES CBE

DR A DOSHOKI	APPELLANT

SHILEY LTD T/A SCHNEIDER UK	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	IN PERSON	

	JUDGE PETER CLARK:     Both these appeals came before us today for preliminary hearing.  Having heard Dr Doshoki’s oral submissions two matters have arisen in respect of which we require the assistance of the respective Industrial Tribunal Chairmen.  

	In the first appeal (EAT/607/97), an appeal against the decision of a Chairman, Mr D. Booth sitting alone, at London (South) on 1 April 1997 dismissing the Appellant’s complaint of wrongful dismissal, we have been taken to letters from the Industrial Tribunal to the parties dated 3 February, 20 February and 24 February 1997 which, the Appellant submits, clearly indicate that the hearing listed for 1 April at 2.30 pm was designated an interlocutory, rather than a full hearing.  

	It is his case that on 1 April he objected to the Chairman proceeding to a full merits hearing of the wrongful dismissal complaint.  The nature of his case on appeal appears at page 5 of his Notice of Appeal.  We should appreciate the Chairman’s written comments on the account of the proceedings there set out by the Appellant, before deciding whether this appeal ought to proceed to a full hearing on what is described by the Appellant as “the natural justice point”.  

	Turning to the second appeal (EAT/297/98) against a decision of the Ashford Industrial Tribunal chaired by Mrs Valerie Cooney and promulgated on 13 January 1998, the point is this.  It is the Appellant’s case that he was prevented from re-opening the circumstances in which he came to be dismissed by Mr Terry at the meeting held on 18 October 1996 because that question had earlier been decided by Mr Booth in the context of the wrongful dismissal hearing.
We should again appreciate Mrs Cooney’s written comments on that contention.  At present it is not clear to us whether the Ashford Industrial Tribunal’s findings at paragraph 45 of their reasons were wholly based on their own assessment of the evidence given to them, or whether those findings were made in whole or in part in circumstances where the Ashford Tribunal felt bound by the earlier findings made by Mr Booth.

	In these circumstances we shall adjourn these preliminary hearings pending receipt of the respective Chairman’s comments on the specific points which we have identified.  Thereafter I shall give further directions as to the future conduct of these appeals.