[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> El Mahjoub v. Initial Cleaning Services Ltd [2000] UKEAT 463_00_1511 (15 November 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/463_00_1511.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 463__1511, [2000] UKEAT 463_00_1511

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	OLIVER SEGAL (Of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


JUDGE LEVY QC

1. Mr El Mahjoub, the Appellant in this Preliminary Hearing of his Appeal, was an employee of Initial Cleaning Services and brought proceedings on 29 September 1999 claiming damages for unfair dismissal and unpaid wages.
2. There was a hearing of his complaint at Stratford on 28 January 2000. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that he was not dismissed and his complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed. There was an Order for unpaid wages. That decision was sent to the parties on 7 February 2000. There was an Appeal from that decision mounted by the Appellant and received by this Tribunal on 20 March 2000. The Appellant appeared in person below.
3. We have had the advantage of having Mr Segal of Counsel on the ELAAS Scheme appearing for Mr El Mahjoub today. He has identified to us 2 grounds, which in our view merit this matter going to a full appeal.
4. First, there was a procedural complaint which should be raised, namely that a document showing a telephone record was produced to the Tribunal enclosing speeches. The claimant was in person, he was not given the opportunity to cross examine any witness about this document at all nor was any guidance given to him about its relevance over and above the matter for which the respondent required it. Looking at that document, it is clear that its contents might, well have contained some gold nugget, which might have assisted his case. Secondly, since the date of the hearing, there has emerged new evidence, which might well have assisted him, in his application had it then been available. We do not form any view as to whether or not this is so but there is the possibility that there may be a good ground of appeal, if new evidence is to be introduced.
5. We therefore feel it appropriate to give leave which Mr Segal has sought for the Notice of Appeal to be amended so that the matters to which I have referred can be included, in substitution for what is there already. That amended Notice of Appeal should be lodged and served within 14 days. We give liberty for the Appellant to swear and serve an Affidavit in support of the application to receive new evidence. That should be sworn within 28 days, with liberty to apply for an extension if that is necessary because legal aid is being sought. We would hope that legal aid would be available to the Appellant to mount his Appeal.