Appeal No.	 EAT/293/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 16 March 1998

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BELL
MR L D COWAN
MR R JACKSON

NICEDAY LTD	APPELLANTS

MISS V OYOLU	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR D TATTON BROWN
(of Counsel)
Messrs Bolitho Way
Solicitors
13/18 King's Terrace
Portsmouth
PO5 3AL	

	MR JUSTICE BELL:     We do consider that the appeal in this case merits argument before the Tribunal on a full inter partes hearing on the grounds set out in Mr Tatton Brown’s Notice of Appeal and his Skeleton Argument.  We do not propose to take time by merely rehearsing those points here.  We have one matter only we draw attention to.  

	We allow the appeal to go ahead on the grounds from paragraph 1 (d) - 1 (g) which really challenge findings of fact, failures to find certain facts, and inferences which are drawn from certain matters.  It is unusual to allow an appeal to go ahead on those matters unless they are absolutely plain, but we feel that they are so intertwined with grounds 1 (a) (b) and (c) that we ought not to set about any editing exercise.  That raises the question of the matters in sub-paragraphs 1 - 7 of sub-paragraph (d).

	Mr Tatton Brown expresses confidence that it will be possible to agree that those matters were either admitted or unchallenged, but if it is not possible to agree them he would like the Chairman’s notes of evidence relating to those particular points, so that the Appeal Tribunal can judge them for itself.

	It seems to us, in those circumstances, the appropriate step is to direct that the Respondent should indicate to the Appellants within 28 days whether any of the matters in sub-paragraphs (i) to (vii) are disputed.  If so, which, and to what extent.

	We direct that Chairman’s notes be produced in relation only to any of those matters which are then put in issue.  There will be a time estimate of one day, Category C.