[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Anite Systems Ltd v Williams-Key [1999] UKEAT 898_98_0109 (1 September 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/898_98_0109.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 898_98_0109, [1999] UKEAT 898_98_109

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR P GOULDING (of Counsel) Instructed By: Miss A M Hunter Messrs Stevens & Bolton Solicitors 1 The Billings Walnut Tree Close Guildford Surrey GU1 4YD
For the Respondent	IN PERSON


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is an application for Notes of Evidence. There are two parts of the Notes which are being called for.

1. The first relates to the hearing in February when the Tribunal considered a preliminary point as to whether the Notice of Appearance should be struck out. On that occasion there was a complaint about lack of Discovery by the Respondents.
2. Mr Williams-Key says that there was a discussion as to what documents would be called for and were necessary for the fair determination of his complaint and the Notes of Evidence should, therefore, be able to identify the documents which Mr Williams-Key was saying were necessary to be disclosed for the fair determination of his complaint.
3. The reason why I think that is potentially relevant (although I think it is unlikely to be of much assistance at the end of the day) is because there may be an issue as to the understanding of the Respondents as to the extent of their obligations under the Discovery Order, which was made, having regard to its terms.
4. There is also an issue as to whether the Appellant/employers have complied with that order, and a further issue as to whether, in any event, their Notice of Appearance should have been struck out without then having been given particulars of the respects in which they were said to have failed to comply. So that, possibly, a Note that was made by the learned Chairman, as to the documents which were being called for at this time, would be of assistance if he still has it.
5. In relation to the resumed hearing, Mr Williams-Key tells me that at the very beginning the learned Chairman enquired as to whether there was a person within the Anite Systems Ltd organisation who had knowledge of PHI insurance matters and that the Respondents, the Appellants on this appeal, identified an individual who is a Director.
6. It would be helpful to the determination of these appeals if the learned Chairman were just to deal with that aspect of his Notes of Evidence. Because these are two very small matters, in terms of the notes that he will have made, I feel less embarrassed about making an order for Notes of Evidence than I would otherwise have done.
7. I would like to make it plain to the learned Chairman that these are two very small points. First, what documents were being referred to in February and was there a person who was identified as being a PHI person within the Anite Systems Ltd and, if so, who it was.
8. I bear in mind in exercising my discretion to make this order that what I said on the previous occasion at the PDH hearing, namely that despite the fact that the Notice of Appearance was struck out Mr Williams-Key failed in his claim. He appeals against that decision and Anite Systems Ltd cross-appeal and say "that after that appeal has been heard and determined, if it were against us we would wish to argue that the case should not have been struck out at all".
9. In those circumstances I make this limited order that has been requested.