BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Ali v Wojnowski [1993] UKEAT 834_92_0303 (3 March 1993) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/834_92_0303.html Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 834_92_303, [1993] UKEAT 834_92_0303 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
I N T E R N A L
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE OBE QC
MRS M L BOYLE
MR J A SCOULLER
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MISS S T JAHAN
(Of Counsel)
Messrs Virdi & Co
Solicitors
124 Wandsworth High Street
London SW18 4JP
JUDGE HARGROVE QC: This is a Notice of Appeal from a decision of the Industrial Tribunal of the 3rd September 1992.
There had been an adjournment of hearing previously, on the 14th August 1992, when certain Orders had been made on the production of documents. Suffice it to say that that was not done.
On the 3rd September 1992 the Tribunal took a very severe view of the attitude of the employer in this respect. It is fair to say the document, which we have seen placed before us, is not a long document. It was of course vital to the proceedings, it was presented at 9.55 am on the morning of the hearing. The Industrial Tribunal took the view that it was a flagrant disregard of an Order made. There was a failure to alert the Tribunal that there was any problem with the documents. The excuse given was that, first of all, he was acting by himself; that he had only contacted solicitors the day before and that the documents had been lost in post. The Tribunal had to exercise their discretion and exercise it judicially, we can see no evidence whatsoever in this matter that the Tribunal did not do precisely that. It was within the discretion of the Tribunal. It might not have been a decision which would have been taken by everyone, but one they were entitled to take, and we order that no further step be taken in this matter.
