Appeal No. EAT 474/90

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	4 ST. JAMES'S SQUARE, LONDON, SW1 4JU

		At the Tribunal
		On 23rd September 1991

	Before

	THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)

	MR A FERRY MBE

	MISS C HOLROYD

MISS F SINCLAIR	APPELLANT

WIND ENERGY GROUP LTD	RESPONDENTS

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

	PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN 	PERSON

	

	MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT):  In this Preliminary Hearing of an Appeal Miss Sinclair alleges that a Decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting in London (North) on the 24th, 25th and 26th June 1990 is open to criticism. 

	She raises a number of points;  first she alleges that in paragraph 3 of the Decision the findings of fact, which were against her, were not based on any evidence, alternatively were findings in the "teeth" of evidence to the contrary from other witnesses for the Respondent.

	Secondly, she makes a similar submission in connection with the findings in paragraph 4 of the Decision which is the issue of victimisation. The third, fourth and fifth points are of a somewhat different character.

	The third point she raises is that at the Hearing before the Industrial Tribunal she was refused an Order that the Respondents produce documentation relating to any other case in which the parent Company, Taylor Woodrow, had been involved in an Industrial Tribunal.

	Fourthly, she complains that there was a withholding of a witness and refusal of her application for a Witness Order which she says was withdrawn because she was told that the absence of the witness would be held against the Respondents and that there was no mention of this in the Decision.

	Fifthly, she says there was irregular behaviour of the Industrial Tribunal staff and refers to a letter of the 26th February 1990, which was page 105 in the Respondent's bundle of documents, which she says indicates irregularity.

	We have reached the Decision that in fairness to Miss Sinclair this Court should have an opportunity of examining those issues with the Respondents present.  Whether there is any substance whatsoever in any of them will be a matter for this Full Court.  We give no indication of any views held by this Court at this time.  The fact that this matter is going forward to a Full Hearing should not be considered with that in mind.

	It follows therefore, that we shall ask the learned Chairman to produce his Notes of Evidence and it is probably as well if they are the full Notes, although we considered carefully whether we could limit them to Dr Musgrove, Miss Craig and Dr Lindley.  We feel there is a danger in limiting them, that there will then be a suggestion that some other evidence was relevant and there will be further delay and expense with the added risk of increasing exacerbation of feelings in this matter, in which feelings clearly and understandably run high.  So we will ask for the Notes of Evidence.  We will also ask that the copy of this very short Judgment is sent to the learned Chairman, because it is suggested that the issues were raised in points 3, 4 and possibly 5 and we will want to know whether there is a note in his Notes of Evidence on those matters or whether he can recall the issues which arose.  To that extent and on those five points this matter will go forward to a Full Hearing.