Appeal No.	 EAT/704/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On  1 July 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR D A C LAMBERT
PROFESSOR P D WICKENS OBE

MRS M BANKS	APPELLANT

PRODUCE STUDIES LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR JONES
(OF COUNSEL)
Appearing under the 
Employment Law
Appeal Advice Scheme
(ELAAS)	

	JUDGE D M LEVY QC:	In the PHD of this Appeal, we have had the benefit of submissions for the Appeal by Mr Jones of Counsel on the ELAAS scheme.  The Notice of Appeal as drafted hides a point which Mr Jones has brought to us in the course of his address.  It is contained in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3(a) of the Amended Notice of Appeal which he seeks to substitute for that prepared by the Appellant in person.  

1	Paragraph 3(b) seeks to take a new point which has not been taken earlier.  We think that the point in 3(a) is arguable, although we should not say that this is the strongest case of an Appellant which has been before a Employment Appeal Tribunal.  

2	As to the second point, we think that the Appellant should seek leave to introduce that new point at the Hearing of the Appeal itself.  It may be that the Respondent will want to oppose leave to amend out of time as a preliminary point but we will give leave for this to go to a Full Hearing, with liberty to the Respondent to apply at a Preliminary Hearing against leave to introduce a new point, although the Appellant’s application can be heard and determined when the Appeal is called on for hearing.