[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Denteh v. Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis & Ors [2001] UKEAT 1033_00_2703 (27 March 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1033_00_2703.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 1033__2703, [2001] UKEAT 1033_00_2703

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR MICHAEL DUGGAN (of Counsel)
For the Respondents


 


MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC

1. This matter has come before us by way of Preliminary Hearing from a decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at London South, promulgated on 29 June 2000. They had spent some 18 days considering the evidence and issues in the case. The essence of the appeal, as helpfully crystallised under 4 headings by Mr Duggan for the Appellant, is that the Tribunal were biased against the Appellant and that this is the explanation for findings of fact which were hostile to his case. We should emphasise that we have not heard any argument, beyond that contained in the skeleton and in the Notice of Appeal, in respect of any of those points, although we wonder how much substance there may be in them and in order to assist a Preliminary Hearing in evaluating that, have suggested to Mr Duggan that the Appellant identify the 3 or 4 best points that would demonstrate that the Tribunal came to an impermissible conclusion.
2. There is however one matter upon which we think this Tribunal requires further assistance. At paragraph 14 of his affidavit of 7 September 2000, the Appellant describes an occasion in which the Tribunal were on their own with the Respondent's witnesses and legal team, having asked him to leave, for some period of time, and he is concerned about that. The Chairman, in her response, emphasises that for that to happen would be impermissible but she has no particular recollection. We think that it is important that the lay members be invited to say what, if any, recollection they may have of that matter. Mr Duggan has asked that they consider also whatever it is that Frank Etu-Menson, a friend and companion of the Appellant on that day before the Tribunal can recall, which is to be put in the form of an affidavit within 7 days and sent to the lay members together with the Appellant's affidavit.
3. It is on that basis, to secure that further information, that we have adjourned this Preliminary Hearing. It will undoubtedly come back to a differently constituted panel of this Tribunal.