![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Villanueva v. London Clubs Management Ltd (t/a The Rendezvous Club) [2000] EAT 352_99_3011 (30 November 2000) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/352_99_3011.html Cite as: [2000] EAT 352_99_3011 |
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BELL
MS N AMIN
MISS A MACKIE OBE
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING – EX PARTE
For the Appellant | MR MARTIN WESTGATE (of Counsel) Central London Community Law Centre 19 Whitcomb Street London WC2H 7HA |
For the Respondents | MR ADRIAN ILES (of Counsel) Messrs Charles Russell Solicitors 8-10 New Fetter Lane London EC4A 1RS |
MR JUSTICE BELL: This is an appeal by Mr Villaneuva against the decision of the London (North) Employment Tribunal promulgated with extended reasons on 12th January 1999 following a hearing held on 9th December 1998.
"It was clear I agree that the Applicant's command of English was poor."
The Chairman went on to say that nevertheless the tribunal paid close attention to the evidence and did ask some questions of some of the respondent's witnesses in order to establish the position. The letter continued:
"The case appeared to be a clear one on behalf of the Respondents. It seems to me that it is the duty of the parties to make sure that they attend the Tribunal properly represented or able to deal with the matters that are raised and that it creates an impossible situation if the Tribunal adjourns matters simply because parties arrive unable to understand English. It if then the duty of the Tribunal to help them which I am quite sure we did in this particular case."
"The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that the Applicant's claim is not made out and is dismissed. This decision is in extended form."
Then appears the usual heading when a decision is given in extended form, namely "Extended Reasons". The extended reasons run to four paragraphs taking just over one page of type. They deal only with the claim for unfair dismissal. Of course in some cases all that needs to be said can be said very shortly while making the reasons for the tribunal's decision and for preferring one party's case to that of the other absolutely clear. However, in this case paragraph 1 of the extended reasons is a very bare factual account of the background to the claim for unfair dismissal. Paragraph 2 reads:
"2 Evidence was given on behalf of the Respondents by three witnesses and the Applicant did not challenge the accuracy of this evidence although the Chairman warned him of the conclusions which the Tribunal might have to draw in the absence of any cross-examination by him which would cast doubt on that evidence. As the matter was not tested in cross-examination the Tribunal accepted the evidence which was given on behalf of the Respondents."
Paragraph 3 purports to describe the appellant's case. The paragraph extends to five lines and is not entirely accurate in such description as it does give of the appellant's case. Paragraph 4 is somewhat longer. It purports to set out the findings on the evidence. At one stage it declares that certain matters were clear from the evidence. It consists almost entirely of an account of the respondents' case on certain issues, thereby obviously indicating that that case was accepted. Paragraph 4 ends:
"We cannot see that there is anything to criticise in the way in which the Respondents carried out the tasks of consultation and selection presumably selection for redundancy] and consequently we find that the Applicant's claim fails and is dismissed."
"The tribunal shall, so far as it appears to it appropriate, seek to avoid formality in its proceedings and shall not be bound by any enactment or rule of law relating to admissibility of evidence in proceedings before courts of law. The tribunal shall make such enquiries of persons appearing before it and witnesses as it considers appropriate and shall otherwise conduct the hearing in such manner as it considers most appropriate for the clarification of the issues before it and generally to the just handling of the proceedings."
Mr Westgate stresses the words "the tribunal shall make such enquiries of persons appearing before it and witnesses". He contends that the Rule imposes a positive obligation to adopt an inquisitorial role, especially where, as here, one party is disadvantaged in carrying out an inquisitorial role on his own account. He referred us to various authorities and to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and contended that the authorities and the Convention together pointed away from a restrictive meaning being put on Rule 9(1). Mr Westgate submitted that Rule 9(1) imposed a positive burden on the tribunal. The tribunal ought to be ready to achieve an even balance by probing the issues before it, even if that involved actual cross-examination of the witnesses of one party.
"We find that they [the respondents] would have been prepared to wait until the Applicant returned and then to continue exploration of the position to see if they could offer him a new job."
"An employee is entitled to be provided by his employer with a written statement giving particulars of the reasons for the employee's dismissal-
(a) if the employee is given by the employer notice of termination of his contract of employment, …"
He said however that that was not the end of the matter, because by section 93(1) it is provided that:
"A complaint may be presented to an employment tribunal by an employee on the ground that-
…
(b) the particulars of reasons given in purported compliance with that section are inadequate or untrue."
Mr Westgate's argument was that even if one accepted that very full reasons for dismissal were given in the May and July 1998 letters, if the appellant's case succeeded at a rehearing, it would follow that the reasons given in those letters were either inadequate or untrue.