Appeal No. EAT/0392/02 ZT

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 22 May 2003

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE BIRTLES
LORD DAVIES OF COITY CBE
MR G LEWIS

MR G McCANN	APPELLANT

(1) CONSIGNIA PLC	RESPONDENTS
(2) MISS H V FOX

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR G McCANN
(the Appellant in Person)	
For the Respondent	MR R WHITE
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Messrs Hammond Suggards Edge Solicitors
2 Park Lane
Leeds LS3 1ES	

HIS HONOUR JUDGE BIRTLES

1	This is an appeal from the decision of the Tribunal sitting at Leeds on 7 and 8 January 2002.  The decision was sent to the parties and entered in the register on 15 February 2002.  The Chairman was Mr P Hildebrand.  The Employment Tribunal unanimously decided that the applications of Mr G McCann and Mrs H V Fox were misconceived and stood no reasonable prospect of success.

2	There was an appeal by Mr McCann against that decision.  The matter came before a different panel of this Tribunal on 12 August 2002.  The judge was His Honour Judge John Reid QC.  In that judgment Judge Reid identified the fact that the Employment Tribunal had decided the issue having heard only some of the witnesses to be called by the Respondent without hearing any evidence from the Applicant.  The relevant passage is at paragraph 10 of his judgment.  He says this:

10	“It seemed to us that the problem in this particular instance is that the Tribunal jumped too early.  They had not heard the totality of the evidence on behalf of the Post Office.  In particular, they had not heard any evidence from Mr Coltman, who was the representative of the Post Office who dealt with the appeals against dismissal.  It is quite possible that an initially fair dismissal (if that is what there was) can be vitiated by, for example, bias in the conduct of the appeal process.  The possibility also, so far as we can see at this stage, exists that notwithstanding the absence of any effective cross-examination which would link Mr Dickinson and Mr Owen to Mr Parkinson in connection with the dismissal, there might have been some such evidence called on behalf of Mr McCann and Miss Fox.  That is the position so far as we can see.   Although there were witness statements of a sort prepared, we have not had the opportunity of seeing those witness statements and it is not clear to us whether the Tribunal saw those witness statements.”

For those reasons the Employment Appeal Tribunal granted leave to Mr McCann to go forward to a full hearing.

3	Subsequent to that, the Respondents have conceded that Judge Reid identified two potential errors of law in the decision of the Employment Tribunal in cutting short the case half way through the Respondent’s evidence.  That is an error of law and for that reason we allow the appeal, remit the case of Mr McCann to be tried before a fresh Employment Tribunal in Leeds.  This part of the decision of this Tribunal will be expedited and sent to the parties and the Tribunal in Leeds.

4	That leaves us with Miss Fox.  She is not the Appellant at all.  We make no order in respect of her.  That does not preclude Miss Fox making an appeal out of time in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Practice Direction.