Appeal No. EAT/716/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 20 September 1996

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLLAND
MR D J HODGKINS CB
MR R SANDERSON OBE

MRS L CARTER	APPELLANT	

CADRE TECHNOLOGIES LTD	

RESPONDENTS	

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR CARTER
(Representative)	
For the Respondents	MR SEAN JONES
(of Counsel)
Messrs Eversheds
Solicitors
Senator House
85 Queen Victoria Street
London
EC4V 4JL	

	MR JUSTICE HOLLAND:   We have here an appeal from an interlocutory decision of a Chairman of an Industrial Tribunal at Reading, he having made a ruling as to discovery. Since he made that ruling on 3rd June 1996, matters have moved on quite a pace, with the result that certain of the documents that were then sought have been disclosed voluntarily, and we have had a hearing today dealing with three sets of documents marked as 6,7 and 8 on the Notice of Appeal. 

	We have spent quite some time in the course of this hearing discussing not only the merits of the appeal, but more importantly the overall merits of the case and above all its future progress. What has emerged forcefully is this. That whereas it would be difficult to justify the relevance of the documents as asked by the unrespresented Mrs Carter, there is certainly a case for such further disclosure as may be possible of the information that was sought to be ascertained by way of those documents. 

	Turning then to the practical way to deal with this matter. We are entirely satisfied that we could not attack the Chairman’s finding as perverse, and that we would have to do were we to allow this appeal. In those circumstances, the appeal as such is dismissed.

	However, having regard to our view as to the underlying merits of the matter, we are making an immediate order, that being an order that could have been made by the Industrial Tribunal. The order is this, that we order the respondents to serve within 21 days full particulars of all such facts and matters as they rely upon with respect to their case as to:
1.	The user password.
2.	The password for the prospect data base.
	Having had the advantage of the discussion, we are fully aware that the respondents through Mr Jones and his solicitor understand of the full significance of the point;essentially what we are looking for is the history that is relied upon with respect to each password, the passwords themselves being carefully distinguished for that purpose, since the respective histories are unlikely to be the same. 

	Focusing on what appears to be the crucial password, that is the one to enter the Prospect Date Base, then the issue seems to be as to when and in what circumstances the password changed from ‘gold’ to ‘Rita’ and yet further, from ‘Rita’ to either ‘Rita and Prospect’ as Mrs Carter would say, or ‘Prospects’ as Mr Jones currently would say. That in its turn will no doubt persuade those instructing Mr Jones to look at the history of the matter from November 1995 onwards, which history may include the efforts made by the external expert to enter the system after the dismissal of Mrs Carter, and what he encountered in the course of that exercise.

	We draw attention in this judgment, as we did in argument, to the potential advantage, first to the respondents to sort their case out on these critical issues; second, and easily as importantly, the importance to Mrs Carter in knowing the case that she has to meet; and third and not least, the importance to the Industrial Tribunal in having a clear statement of these matters which for many lay men are not readily to be assimilated. 

	Granted that we have given a 21 day limit, with a hearing date on 30th October 1996, no doubt the efforts to resolve these particulars will be urgent and everybody will benefit if they are served well within that time.

	There are two further matters to which this tribunal would draw attention in this judgment as it did in the course of argument.

	First, if Mrs Carter is still dissatisfied on receipt of those particulars and still of a mind to believe that there is a virtue in either disclosure of further documentation, alternatively in the provision of further particulars of the respondent’s case, then she will be in a position to make an urgent application to the Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal, who will then make a fresh decision in the light of the material that is put before him. Plainly that will be an inter partes application, that is, an application at which the respondents can also be represented and heard. One merely comments that with time running by as it is, no doubt a lot of thought will be given as to whether any further application is in fact necessary.

	The final matter is this. Both sides have indicated an intention to rely upon an expert. Plainly that then begs the point as to the expert’s reports and what is to be done about them prior to hearing. As we observed, it is going to assist nobody to have the disclosure delayed until the morning of the hearing. 

	As to that, this tribunal being an appellate tribunal is in no good position to make directions, but what we invite the parties to do is to utilise the balance of this afternoon to discuss the potential for an exchange of expert’s reports at an early stage, well before the hearing itself. If that produces an agreement well and good, if it does not, that again is a further matter to be referred to the Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal, who will make his own ruling and give his own directions.

	May we conclude by saying that we are grateful to both sides, that is to Mr Carter and to Mr Jones, for helping us unravel this problem, and we trust that all this will mean that the hearing on 30th October will proceed smoothly and without difficulty.