[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Clouden v London Borough Of Hackney [1999] UKEAT 594_98_1903 (19 March 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/594_98_1903.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 594_98_1903

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR B UDUJE (of Counsel) Chancery House 53-64 Chancery Lane London WC2A 1QW
For the Respondent	MR A BUTLER (of Counsel) The Solicitor London Borough of Hackney 298 Mare Street London E8 1HE


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This matter was before the Employment Appeal Tribunal previously in July 1998. At the end of an oral hearing, the Court gave an 'indication', and I use that word with caution, as to the result of the case. What it said was, we have considered that the appeal in relation to the first Originating Application should be allowed and then some other words were said. After that conclusion had been announced to the parties, Mr Butler who appeared on behalf of the unsuccessful Respondent, then asked for leave to appeal. It was thought more sensible that his application for leave to appeal should be considered after he had had an opportunity of looking at the reason to judgment.

In the event the judgment took some time in publication and when it was published it did not record the judgment that had previously been given or the conclusion that had previously been given, that the appeal should be allowed, in relation to paragraph 6.1 of the Notice of Appeal. In fact, the judgment is defective in the sense that it did not fully deal with that point in it.

There is no record of an order having been drawn up and nothing in the papers to indicate that a decision had been given, but it is clear from both Counsels' recollection that that was the position. What should now happen? There is an Order which has been drawn up, which gives effect to the judgment which itself does not give effect to the decision which had been announced at the end of the hearing.

Mr Butler says that the Order and the judgment should stand. It is submitted on behalf of Mr Clouden, by Mr Uduje that the correct course is for the Court to review its decision. That is to review the Order which was formerly drawn up erroneously in the light of the indication which had been given. It seems to me that where the interest of justice require a review, then this Court has power to do it. It seems to me, in this case, however unattractive it may be, that the correct course is for the Order which was drawn up to be reviewed and for the Order to give effect to that which was indicated immediately after the hearing to the effect that, and I quote, "we have concluded that the appeal in relation to the first Originating Application should be allowed". Therefore the Order will be amended to that effect.

That means that the judgment which was written and given to the parties does not accord with the Order that was made. It seems to me that the correct course for the Court to take at this stage is to give effect to the Order that should have been made and by dealing with the point in the judgment which will require to be revised for that purpose. Accordingly, I grant the application for a review and make the Order as indicated which will be that the appeal is allowed in relation to the first Originating Application.