Appeal No.	 EAT/1390/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 17 December 1999

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT)
MR D J JENKINS MBE
MRS J M MATTHIAS

MR S HIRANI	APPELLANT

DOME COSMETICS LTD 	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

FULL HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON	
For the Respondent	MR N TOMS
KINGSFORD STACEY
BLACKWELL 
14 OLD SQUARE
LINCOLN'S INN
LONDON
WC2A 3UB	

	MR JUSTICE LINDSAY:

1.	We have before us, by a way of a full hearing of the appeal, the appeal of Mr S Hirani in the matter Hirani against Dome Cosmetics Ltd.  

2.	Before us today, Mr Hirani is in person and Dome Cosmetics appears by Counsel, Mr Toms.  Dome, as has been explained to us by counsel, had earlier instructed Mr Tim Pullen.  Mr Toms himself has come into the matter as very short notice.  

3.	As the matter was called on today, Mr Hirani made the complaint that Dome Cosmetics had exchanged no skeleton argument.  It should have been exchanged with him some 14 days ago. That is not only a general provision but the Employment Appeal Tribunal, when it heard the preliminary hearing on the 18th October under Mr Justice Holland, provided as the last paragraph of its order that the Tribunal further orders that the parties do exchange and lodge skeleton arguments not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full hearing.  So, in not supplying skeleton arguments to Mr Hirani at that interval before the full hearing, Dome Cosmetics is obviously blameworthy although, for the reasons that are explained to us in Mr Pullen’s letter to us, Mr Toms himself is without blame in this regard.  

4.	It could be added that Mr Hirani is equally at fault because he has not supplied an exchange skeleton either.  But, as the matter was called on, he applied for an adjournment in order to be able to consider the skeleton argument on behalf of the Respondents which, in fact, he received only yesterday.  With it he received a batch of photocopies of authorities.  There is, of course, no obligation on a Respondent to supply photocopies of authorities to the other side.  It is a very convenient practice, but, if a skeleton argument had been provided, Mr Hirani would have been able to go to a public library or to some law library and would have been able to look up the cases referred to in the Respondents’ skeleton and to see whether they said what the Respondents said they said and to have considered how they featured in the argument.  He has been denied that opportunity, not for want of supply of photocopies, which was a convenient thing for them to have done, but by reason of the skeleton not having been supplied in time. We fear that were we to go forward today Mr Hirani would not be able adequately to deal with the arguments put in the Respondents’ skeleton and that at least some of the inadequacy would be attributable to the late receipt of the Respondents’ skeleton.  

5.	It is unfortunately a common feature of appeals to the EAT that, notwithstanding the settled practice including the provision in orders for exchange of skeletons, and notwithstanding practice directions in standing form to the same effect, they are exchanged and supplied to the EAT very late. It is particularly inconvenient for lay members of the EAT because whereas the judge will be sitting here and can pick them up as they come in, members will not be here in many cases and will have to have them posted on to them and the matter is accordingly further delayed in the sense that the lay members get their skeletons even later than the judge does and, hence, will not sometimes have had that full opportunity of reflecting on them that the fourteen day provision is intended to provide.  We hold here that we ought to give Mr Hirani an adjournment for the reason we have given.  He cannot be expected adequately to cope, having had the papers only the day before.  We will have to discuss to what date the matter can be adjourned.  It might be that we will not be able to give a date here and now.  I will have a word with the learned associate in a moment but we do accede to Mr Hirani’s application and so the next stage we will want to go to is to try to find out what hearing date will next be available. 

6.	Having regard to the fact that this is a relatively short case, listed for about two hours, the matter might have to go as far off as April I think all we can do it to indicate to the parties that they will have to approach the listing office and indicate the time estimate and ask for as earlier date as practical.  I do not think there is any more we can do.