Appeal No.	 EAT/356/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 9 July 1999

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHARLES
MRS T A MARSLAND
MR T C THOMAS CBE

MR S LANE	APPELLANT

RENAULT CARDIFF	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR J HYAM
(of Counsel)
Appearing under the
Employment Law Appeal
Advice Scheme	

	MR JUSTICE CHARLES:	This is a case which comes before us by way of a preliminary hearing.  The parties are Mr Lane and Renault Cardiff.

1	Mr Lane appeals against a decision of the Employment Tribunal, the Extended Reasons for which were sent to the parties on 8 January 1999 and related to a hearing which had taken place on 25 August 1998.

2	On the face of it this case simply involves a dispute of fact, namely as to whether a particular sum of £6,550 had been paid.  That is the tip of the iceberg.  

3	Unfortunately, the Employment Tribunal shredded a number of papers because they had thought that the case had been settled.

4	It is Mr Lane’s case that amongst those papers is a letter, the date of which he told us was 19 September 1997, which he maintains supports his case that a particular sum of £9,730 did not include the £6,550.

5	On 25 August 1998 there was a review hearing where the Employment Tribunal allowed the case to proceed.  Mr Lane’s case is that at that time he raised the issue of the missing letter or, in any event, he had been told by the Secretary to the Tribunal that the Chairman knew about the missing letter and he maintains that, as a litigant in person, he was disadvantaged by the hearing proceeding on that date in the absence of the letter and/or full investigation as to whether a copy was available.  

6	In their PHD form the Respondent, Renault, say that they have no recollection of a shredded letter being mentioned at that hearing.

7	It seems to us that this appeal should proceed on the basis that there is a reasonably arguable point of law, that there was procedural unfairness in the conduct of the hearing in that:
	(a) 	insufficient steps and investigations were made to identify whether a copy of the letter could be obtained or, 
	(b)	if that was not, or was unlikely to be, possible to give Mr Lane or Renault the opportunity to bring to the Tribunal the person who Mr Lane says wrote the letter.  
On that basis we direct this appeal will proceed and we will give the following additional directions.

8	First, that Mr Lane should put in an affidavit.  That is to be filed within the next 14 days and is to set out the history of the events, as he sees it, and in particular is to include (i) his account of his communications with the Tribunal and the communications of the Citizens Advice Bureau with the Tribunal concerning the shredded letter, and (ii) what he says the shredded letter contained and therefore its relevance.

9	We will give Renault 14 days thereafter to answer that affidavit.

10	We will direct that the Chairman be invited (i) to comment on both affidavits, and (ii) to provide this Tribunal with an account of the history of the case and his recollection as to what was raised concerning the shredded letter, a copy of his notes of the hearing and copies of any relevant records of the Employment Tribunal.