Wright v British Telecommunications Plc [1996] UKEAT 961_95_1906

EAT
Wright v British Telecommunications Plc
[1996] UKEAT 961_95_1906 · 1996-06-19
MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by Mr Kevin Wright against the unanimous decision of the Industrial Tribunal held on 7 April, 22, 23 and 24 May, and 3 July 1995. The Tribunal heard a claim of sex discrimination brought by Mr Wright against British Telecom. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that there had been no act of discrimination committed against him, contrary to Part 4 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 .The Extended Reasons for that decision were sent to the parties on 20 July 1995. Mr Wright, who is dissatisfied with the decision, served a Notice of Appeal which takes a number of points. He says there are errors of law by the Tribunal in the decision. The Notice of Appeal was dated 26 August 1995.The case came before the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 26 January 1996 on a Preliminary Hearing. Only Mr Wright as the Appellant attended. British Telecommunications as the Respondents were not required to attend. At the hearing, chaired by Judge Altman, the Tribunal directed that the appeal be allowed to proceed to a full hearing. They must have been satisfied that Mr Wright's appeal raised a reasonably arguable question of law. That cannot be questioned by me. That is a matter for a full hearing at the appeal tribunal.The hearing today has come about as a result of consequential directions. The Tribunal made two orders affecting British Telecom. They were ordered, within six weeks of 26 January, to lodge at this Tribunal all the documents referred to in the order made by the Industrial Tribunal on 6 April 1995, and remained not produced at the hearing in the Industrial Tribunal. There was a further order of the Appeal Tribunal that the Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal, Mr Sneath, should produce his Notes of Evidence relating to the production or non-production of documents in accordance with that order of 6 April, together with any notes or submissions relating to the documents.The position is this. The Chairman of the Tribunal has produced a note for this Tribunal which incorporates his own notes at the hearing relating to the production or non-production of documents. The significant part of that states that:
"... To the best of my recollection, it seemed [to him] that there had been sufficient discovery to do justice in the case, so we simply got on with it. Had it become clear that some important document was not before us, then the case would have been adjourned for its production."
There is also a covering letter of September 1995 in which Mr Sneath makes certain comments on the Appeal Tribunal's letter to him of 13 September 1995.The matter has come back here today so that British Telecom can explain to the Tribunal their response to the order. They were not present on 26 January 1996 when the orders were made. The position of British Telecom, as made clear by Mr Proffer today, is that there are no further documents covered by the order of 6 April which remained not produced. This is disputed by Mr Wright. Mr Wright says that there were earlier occasions in the Industrial Tribunal proceedings when he was told by British Telecom that they had not got documents, and in fact, the documents, which they said they had not got, were later produced. He says there are still more documents which have not been produced. He is of the view that, if they had been produced, then he would have been successful, instead of being unsuccessful, in his claim.These are not matters which I can deal with today. These may be matters that are relevant at the full hearing of the appeal. All I can do today is to record the fact that, as far as the Chairman of the Tribunal is concerned, he has complied with our request to produce his notes and comments on this issue. As far as British Telecom are concerned, all I can do today is to record that they say there are no other documents which have not been produced and that were covered by the 6 April order. Insofar as there is still a dispute between Mr Wright and the Respondents about this matter, that will have to be dealt with when all the other points are argued on the hearing of the appeal.