[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hyde Park Residence Ltd v. Murrell [1999] UKEAT 769_99_0907 (9 July 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/769_99_0907.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 769_99_907, [1999] UKEAT 769_99_0907

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR M REEVE (OF COUNSEL) (Instructed by) Messrs D J Freeman 43 Fetter Lane London EC4A 1JU
For the Respondent	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC: This is an Interlocutory Appeal by Hyde Park Residence Ltd ("the Appellant") from the decision of a Chairman of an Employment Tribunal sitting in London (North) on 14^th May when she declined an invitation by the Appellant to stay proceedings brought by the Respondent to the Appeal, Mr R G Murrell, pending the outcome of proceedings in the Chancery Division Case No: CH 199 A No: 4853 ("the Chancery Action"). She ordered that the matter be listed for a Directions Hearing before her on 19^th July 1999. The Respondent to the Appeal has been given notice of this Appeal and has chosen not to attend or to take part.

1. The background to the proceedings can be relatively briefly summarised. The Respondent was in the employ of the Appellant when events took place in Paris which were the subject of great interest to the British Press. The Appellant alleges that things were said and done by someone who was or possibly a Shadow Director of the Appellant and other of its employees which were such that he was obliged to terminate his employment with the Appellant. On the last day of the time when he could have brought proceedings in the Employment Tribunal resulting from his employment for he did so; he submitted an application to the Industrial Tribunal on 6^th November 1998, received by the Employment Tribunal on that date, alleging constructive dismissal, unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
2. At or about the time he alleges he was constructively dismissed, the Respondent told a newspaper published in England of the matters which he raises in his IT.1. There was consequently, a great deal of publicity about these matters in several issues of that paper. The material published in the paper resulted in the Appellant bringing the Chancery Action in which the editor, publisher and printer of the newspaper are, with the Respondent, defendants.
3. The Learned Chairman of the Employment Tribunal refused a stay of the proceedings on the grounds that there was not a substantial overlap in the matters which were before the Employment Tribunal and the matters which would be before the Court in the Chancery proceedings. We have had the benefit of rather longer submissions from Mr Reeve today - no fault of his - than we understand the Learned Chairman enjoyed when he appeared before her. We have felt it necessary to go into some detail of the matters which are at large in the Chancery proceedings to see whether the Chairman was properly satisfied that there was no overlap as she found. We are satisfied beyond peradventure that there is a very considerable overlap..
4. In these circumstances, with great respect to the Chairman, we have come to the conclusion that her decision not to order a stay cannot stand. We are satisfied that in exercising her discretion not only was her finding that there was no overlap, in our judgment, plainly incorrect. She also failed fully to appreciate the complexity of the factual issues raised and sufficiently to appreciate the grave nature of the allegations made by the parties in the pleadings in both forums and the value of the claims in the Chancery Action of the Appellant. Further, Mr Reeve has satisfied us that the Chairman overlooked the likelihood that if the Employment Tribunal at a contested hearing made findings of fact, such findings might embarrass the resolution of the issues of fact and law in the Chancery Division proceedings.
5. We were referred by Mr Reeve to the passage in Harvey on Industrial Relations and Employment Law at Vol 4, issue 136, paragraphs 716-765 which deal with the principles on which a stay is ordered and our attention has particularly been drawn to the decisions in Carter -v- Credit Change Ltd [1980] 1 All England Report 252 and Calm Wood -v- Goldstein Ltd [1979] ICR 574.
6. We will order that these proceedings be stayed pending the outcome of proceedings in the Chancery Division of the High Court under action CH: 1998 A No. 4853.