Appeal No.	 EAT/1393/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 12 March 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR W MORRIS
MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP

MR P C STUBBINGS	APPELLANT

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR CHAPMAN
of Counsel
(ELAAS)

MR PC STUBBINGS
Ministry of Defence Police HQ
HMNB Portsmouth
Hampshire PO1 3LH	

	HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC:	This is an appeal by Mr Stubbings against  the decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at Plymouth on 29 September 1998.  

	At this preliminary ex-parte hearing of his appeal, the Appellant had the advantage of representation by Mr Chapman of Counsel under the Employment Law Appeal Advisory Scheme.  It was apparent to the members of this panel from perusal of the Extended Reasons of the Employment Tribunal Plymouth which was sent to the parties on 1 October 1998 that at the hearing there was one issue before them.  The hearing took place because by an earlier decision in January of that year the Tribunal had given the parties leave for further argument to be heard at a later date.  The issue then to be resolved was whether a document produced to the Tribunal was a document which sufficiently provided under Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Applicant’s terms and conditions of employment.  Having looked at the document produced, the Tribunal determined the issue in favour of the Respondent.  

	Mr Chapman, on behalf of Mr Stubbings, attempted to open matters which had been before the Tribunal not in September but at the earlier hearing in January.  When we had pointed out to him that the issues determined in January were not the subject of the present appeal, at the Chairman’s request,  there was an adjournment to enable him to take instructions from Mr Stubbings.  After having taken instructions, Mr Chapman told us on instructions that Mr Stubbings wished to withdraw his appeal.  We think that if the instructions came following his advice, it was a proper course for Mr Chapman to advise Mr Stubbings to take and a proper course for Mr Stubbings to take.  In the circumstances, we will permit this appeal to be withdrawn.