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 >> Leake v Inland Revenue [1995] UKEAT 248_95_1110 (11 October 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/248_95_1110.html Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 248_95_1110 |
||
[New search] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON
MR P DAWSON OBE
MISS C HOLROYD
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant
For the Respondents
LEAKE V COMMISSIONERS FOR INLAND REVENUE EAT/248/95
May I suggest that we send the following letter to the IT Chairman
Dear Chairman
Leake v IRC Case Number:1689/94
After a six day hearing, Mrs Leake's complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed for the reasons given in the written Decision entered in the Register on 27 January 1991.
Against that Decision she has put in a Notice of Appeal. Pursuant to its normal practice, the Appeal was listed for an ex parte hearing to determine whether any point of law capable of argument had been raised. During the hearing, the appellant made a number of criticisms of the way the case was dealt with at the Industrial Tribunal. These were:
(a) She was called upon to commence her case. Her adviser, Mr Lawson, who had not previously conducted a case at a Tribunal, had only been provided with the IR's written material the previous Friday and neither she nor he was fully prepared to begin: both being under the impression that the case for the IR would be heard first. She says that the Tribunal ought to have heard the IR case first.
(b) She and her adviser were discouraged from presenting written evidence, as the Chairman indicated that such evidence would have little or no weight. She says that there was one witness, in particular, who was disabled and could not come to the Tribunal because of access to the premises, whose written statement she wanted to introduce.
(c) During the hearing she and her adviser were refused permission to ask questions of the IR witnesses, designed to show that the IR had failed to follow their own procedures in the way they dealt with her alleged lack of capability.
(d) On the last day of the hearing, a witness for the IR produced a schedule or list of what were alleged to be the errors in her work. She says that the Chairman refused to allow her, or her adviser, to cross-examine that witness about the substance of what was said, on the basis that it was what the witness believed that was important rather than whether his belief was justified.
(e) She and her adviser were denied their application for an adjournment at the end of the evidence to give them time to prepare what she calls her 'summation' or closing submissions. Therefore, there was no summation of her case at the end.
Having heard these criticisms, the Chairman of the tribunal, Morison J., adjourned the preliminary hearing for two purposes: first to enable these points to be put to the Industrial Tribunal Chairman and lay members for their response; and, second, to enable the IR to be represented at the adjourned hearing.
We would be grateful if you and the two lay members could be asked to consider and respond tothe various points mentioned above. The Judge has asked me to let you know that he has no view about the merits of what Mrs Leake told the EAT, and that his request for your assistance does not imply any acceptance by the EAT of the substance of Mrs Leake's complaints about the way her case was dealt with by you and your colleagues at the Industrial Tribunal.
