[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> IBM United Kingdom Ltd v Churchhouse [1995] UKEAT 889_95_0910 (9 October 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/889_95_0910.html Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 889_95_0910, [1995] UKEAT 889_95_910

[New search] [Help]

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 889_95_0910

Appeal No. EAT/889/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 9 October 1995

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY

MR R M PHIPPS

MR R LAMBERT

---

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED          APPELLANTS

MR G CHURCHHOUSE          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants MR C BEAR

(Of Counsel)

Legal Department

IBM South Bank

76 Upper Ground

London

SE1 9PZ

For the Respondent NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF           RESPONDENT


 


MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: In these proceedings Mr Churchhouse is claiming against IBM that he has been unfairly dismissed. When IBM filed their appearance in the Industrial Tribunal it was accompanied by a letter dated 6 July 1995 in which they requested particulars of five numbered allegations made by Mr Churchhouse in the statement of case that had been annexed to his Originating Application. In due course the Industrial Tribunal refused that application for particulars. We should say that in his application Mr Churchhouse had appended a thirty-one page document, setting out what he contended were the circumstances giving rise to the dispute.

The appeal before us is quite simply an appeal against the Industrial Tribunal's refusal to order particulars. We have considered the matter this morning to the extent that the original request and the appeal appear to have been directed to some very large issues in the case. We take the view that the Industrial Tribunal was substantially justified in refusing to order particulars. In the course of argument we have identified some areas where we think that IBM are as a matter of law, entitled to further particulars, although we apprehend that our view of this is far narrower than their application and appeal had hoped. In the course of argument this morning we invited Mr Bear who appears on behalf of IBM to reduce the application and appeal to three specific areas and to put before us a document to which we would give further consideration. That has now taken place and after hearing further argument, we are going to allow this appeal in a limited way, in that we shall order that the Applicant in the Tribunal proceedings Mr Churchhouse, be served with a request for particulars under three paragraphs, reading as follows:

1. ) Of the contention that the Applicant "was not redundant, work remained available". Request - state the Applicant's case as to what work remained available for him.
2. ) Of the contention that the Applicant was "unfairly selected".

Request - identify, so far as you are able, each person whom you allege to have been motivated by bad faith in relation to the termination of your employment.

3. ) Of the contention that there was a separate and additional contract with IBM UK Ltd formed on 3 January 1993, which has been breached by IBM UK Ltd.

Request - (i) state whether this contention is relied upon as part of your case of unfair dismissal. (ii) if so, provide particulars of each alleged breach of contract by IBM UK Ltd.

That is as far as we are prepared to go in allowing this appeal. In view of the proximity of the hearing and for other more obvious reasons, the less we say about the actual merits of the case the better.