Appeal No. EAT/546/94

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 6th December 1994

	Before

	THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

	(IN CHAMBERS)

PROMOULD LTD	APPELLANTS

MRS A PHILLIPS	RESPONDENT

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	Mr A Sutcliffe
(Advocacy Manager)
Peninsula Business Services
Advocacy & Litigation Dept.
Stamford House
361/365 Chapel Street
Manchester, M3 5JY

FOR THE RESPONDENT	NO APPEARANCE BY OR 	REPRESENTATION ON 	BEHALF OF THE 	RESPONDENT

	

	MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT):  I now go straight to consider the appeal in Promould Limited against Mrs Phillips.  There are striking similarities between the way in which the hearings on compensation were conducted in the Promould case and the Royal Minehead British Legion case.  There are striking similarities about the way in which the appeals have been conducted in both cases.

	In this case there was a Decision on the merits at a hearing of the Industrial Tribunal in Reading on 2nd November 1993.  The Full Reasons were notified to the parties on the 
12th January 1994. 

	Mr Sutcliffe represented Promould Limited, the Respondents to the proceedings.  the Tribunal unanimously decided that the Application made by Mrs Phillips on the ground of Sex Discrimination under the 1975 Act succeeded.  There was an appeal entered against that Decision.  That was received in this Tribunal on the 18th February 1994.

	At the Hearing on liability, the Tribunal directed that the claim would be relisted as to remedy.  The hearing on remedy took place at Reading on the 15th April 1994.  The representation was the same.  The unanimous Decision of the Tribunal, notified to the parties on the 20th April, was that Mrs Philips should be awarded general damages of £1,500 and special damages of £2,457.

	It appears from paragraph 6 of the Full Reasons that, as in the case of Mrs Gunter, the question of mitigation or failure to mitigate loss, loomed large.  As in the case of Mrs Gunter, the submissions of the Respondents on failure to mitigate cut little ice.  Mr Sutcliffe makes similar complaints against the Reading Tribunal, as he makes against the Exeter Tribunal in the Gunter case.  That is that there was evidence given, particularly in answer to questions in cross examination, which were not dealt with in the Decision, or not dealt with accurately, or not dealt with at all.  That is the basis on which he seeks to have Notes of Evidence relating to the compensation hearing.  He says that there are serious disparities between the evidence given by the Applicant, in cross examination, and the reasoning and findings of fact made by the Tribunal in the Decision.

	He adds a further point to which the Notes of Evidence would be relevant.  That is the finding in paragraph 8 of facts relevant to compensation for stress, anxiety and hurt feelings.  there is a brief statement by the Tribunal, as to Mrs Phillips evidence, that she was devastated by her dismissal and that the dismissal was insensitive and unnecessary.  Again Mr Sutcliffe wishes to see the Notes of Evidence in relation to that, in order to demonstrate disparities between the conclusions of the Tribunal and the evidence before them.

	I am not satisfied by Mr Sutcliffe's arguments on the authorities, or by reference to the particular facts, that this is a case where it is necessary to have the Notes of Evidence of the compensation hearing, in order to determine the Appeal.

	I propose in this case, as in the Gunter case, to direct that the two appeals are heard together.  I will direct that they are heard together with the Gunter appeals, since there is similarities in the arguments advanced.  It will save time to have similar arguments canvassed and adjudicated on by the same Tribunal at the same series of hearings.

	I refuse to order the Chairman's notes.  I do not think, from what I have heard,that they are necessary to decide the appeals.  I will adjourn the question of the application for chairman's notes to the full Tribunal, so that it can consider, when it comes to hear the appeals, whether it is necessary to have them.  I indicate, as in the previous case, that the Tribunal which hears these two appeals should be presided over by me.  I am ordering the four appeals all to be heard together by the same Tribunal, because they raise similar points in relation to:

1.	Requests for Chairman's notes of evidence; and
2.	Treatment, by the Tribunal on a Compensation hearing, of evidence and argument relating to alleged failure to mitigate.