Edge Hill University College v Motala

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS At the Tribunal On 11 March 1998 Before

MR JUSTICE BELL : Having read the papers in this case and considered what Mr Reston has had to say on behalf of the appellant, we do consider that it is arguable that the Industrial Tribunal should have made, but did not make, findings of fact in relation to the comparative merits of Mr Motala and Ms Egharevba, so far as the relevant post was concerned and, that it is arguable that the Industrial Tribunal failed to take account of its finding or failed to take sufficient account of its finding that Ms Egharevba had given a better interview than the applicant.

The remainder of the grounds of appeal really amount to the contention that findings of fact and conclusions drawn from those findings of fact were perverse.

We do not think it would be very productive to go through those matters today. Indeed, we doubt that we could intelligently do so because Mr Reston has persuaded us that to press those points home he does need the Chairman's Notes of Evidence of the cross-examination of Mr Motala, the applicant and the respondent to this appeal, Ms Southworth, Ms Choudhry-Khan, Ms Entwistle and Mr Foster.

We propose to let the appeal go ahead on all the grounds of appeal. We direct the production of Chairman's Notes of Evidence of the cross-examination of those witnesses above. We direct that the representatives of both sides should mark the parts of those Notes which they consider will be relevant upon the hearing of the appeal. There should be exchange of skeleton arguments to contain, by some code or other, reference to the relevant parts of the Notes relied upon, not less than 28 days before the hearing. There will be a time estimate of one day. The case should be listed as Category C.