[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Green v West Midlands Co-Operative [1997] UKEAT 95_97_0905 (9 May 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/95_97_0905.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 95_97_905, [1997] UKEAT 95_97_0905

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR WIDDOWSON (Solicitor) ELAAS


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: In a case Green v West Midlands Co-operative there was a hearing before an Industrial Tribunal at Shrewsbury on 19 July 1996 and 18 September 1996. The decision was promulgated on 3 December 1996. Mr Green had, in his IT1, complained that he was unfairly dismissed. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that he was fairly dismissed.

Having heard an address by Mr Widdowson of the ELAAS Scheme on behalf of Mr Green, thought it appropriate for the appeal to go forward on an amended Notice of Appeal, which is to be lodged in due course, with leave being sought at the hearing for that amended Notice of Appeal to be allowed, but one ground on the amended Notice of Appeal which we have not allowed is the Industrial Tribunal failed to conduct proceedings in a just manner.

In the manuscript Notice of Appeal of Mr Green, allegations were made of unfairness by the Industrial Tribunal and there were Affidavits by Mr Green, Mr Round and a Miss Cole, sworn on 10 July 1997, on which the Chairman and his colleagues have commented.

There were three grounds of unfairness put forward. The first of them was that the appeal went on over two days. The second was that the Appellant's case had not been considered by the Industrial Tribunal and the third was that in his closing address, Mr Green was constantly interrupted when he was in person. Having looked at the Affidavits and the comments we are satisfied that on this aspect the appeal has no chance of success. It is an unfortunate fact that if an appeal goes to a second day, there is often an interruption which the parties have to understand happens through the exigencies of the system. As to the interruptions in the final address, it is the job of a chairman and his colleagues to make sure they are understanding what somebody is saying in the final address and it is only by a question and answer session that this can sometimes be elucidated. We are sure that nothing unfair happened. As to the fact that Mr Green's evidence was not appreciated, the Chairman and his colleagues say that the twenty-four page statement which Mr Green read to them, was considered by them before they reached their decision and that we think is incontrovertible by Mr Green.

In the circumstances we do not think it is arguable that there was a failure to conduct the proceedings in a just manner as Mr Widdowson on behalf of Mr Green has submitted, and we dismiss that ground of the appeal at this stage.