Appeal No.	 EAT/770/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 17 November 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR A D TUFFIN CBE
MISS D WHITTINGHAM

MISS L GEORGE	APPELLANT

LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING 

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	ANDREW WILLIAMS
Representative
Andrew Williams Consultancy
44 Waller Road
London SE14 5LA	

JUDGE D M LEVY QC

1	We have in our list today the preliminary hearing ex-parte of an appeal by Miss L George.  She brought proceedings against the London Borough of Lambeth which resulted in a decision from which she wished to appeal.  

2	The decision was promulgated on 13 January 2000 and the preliminary Notice of Appeal was dated 22 February 2000.  Since then there has been a document headed “Notice of Appeal and Supporting Grounds” received by this Tribunal on 27 March.  Today when the matter was called on, Miss George had the benefit of assistance from a representative, Mr Williams, who has been to this Tribunal before, but unhappily had not provided a Skeleton Argument as is provided by Rule 8 of the Practice Directions giving the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.  The points which Miss George wished to raise on her appeal are ones of some complexity and it is of assistance to the members of the Tribunal if they have the opportunity, as the Rules suggest, to read the Skeleton Argument in advance. 

3	Furthermore, it is of the essence of the system that there should be a clear Notice of Appeal which they can consider before a hearing.  We have suggested to Mr Williams it might be in everybody’s interest if today’s hearing was adjourned so that consideration could be given to a preparation of an appropriate amended Notice of Appeal - I am sure no point will be taken as to the time at which it is launched as against the original date when it should have been launched.  At the same time as such a Notice is prepared, a Skeleton Argument should be produced which must be with the Tribunal fourteen days before the hearing, ex parte, of the appeal.  He has agreed with us that that is a sensible course for us to take, we are therefore adjourning this matter to come up before a different Tribunal on the first open day in the new year.  

4	We would ask at least that the amended Notice of Appeal should be with the Tribunal within 28 days so that it can be served on the Respondents to see if they have any observations which they would wish to make on it, in the normal way, and the appeal ex parte we will hope will come up early in the next year.