Appeal No.	 EAT/963/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On  1 June 1999

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
(AS IN CHAMBERS)

MR C KNIGHT	APPELLANT

KING EDWARD VI GRAMMAR SCHOOL - LOUTH	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

MEETING FOR DIRECTIONS

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED	
For the Respondents	MR G R HOWARD
(Advocate)
Peninsula Business Services Ltd
Stamford House
361-365 Chapel Street
Salford
Manchester
M3 5JY	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):	This is a meeting for directions. The appellant, having persuaded a division of the Employment Appeal Tribunal to allow the matter to proceed to a full hearing, there was an order that some of the Chairman’s Notes in relation to a particular issue be requested. That order has been complied with. The appellant now says he wants more Notes. 

The representative of the appellant has written to us setting out why it is that he says that Notes are required. He says that to enable the tribunal to determine whether Mr Knight entered into a contract for a figure in excess of £10,000, a copy of the Chairman’s Notes were ordered and produced. However, it is argued that these are edited and do not contain details of everything that was said at the hearing. 

The appellant is wrong. They contain everything that was said at the hearing that relates to the question at issue to which the order was directed.

It does not seem to me that Mr Burns understands the nature of an appeal to this Court. This Court can only consider an issue of law. We are not a fact-finding tribunal; we do not delve into the facts behind the tribunal’s decision. It seems to me that there is no good reason why any further Notes should have been asked for and, in any event, it seems to me that this application is made much too late in the day. The matter came before the Employment Appeal Tribunal in early December 1998. The Order in relation to Chairman’s Notes was in a very limited form. If it was thought that the form needed to be widened there should have been an application made forthwith. No such application was made. So in the exercise of my discretion, in any event, I reject this application but primarily because in my judgment Notes of Evidence are not required for the doing of justice to the hearing of this appeal.