Hayes & Ors v Transco Plc

Hayes & Ors v Transco Plc

The trial judge's refusal to admit relevant evidence from the defendant and the severe restriction of cross-examination without adequate notice amounted to a serious procedural irregularity, rendering the decision unjust. A new trial is required to ensure fairness.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: MJ Hayes; Claimant/respondent: RT McDonald; Claimant/respondent: Alan Jeffrey Brown (Personal Representative of JL Hayes); Defendant/appellant: Transco Plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Birkenhead County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered
Legal Topics
Contract of Employment, Disturbance Allowance, Procedural Fairness, Case Management, Cross Examination
Employment Law Civil Procedure Contract of Employment Disturbance Allowance Procedural Fairness Case Management Cross Examination

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MJ Hayes

Claimant/respondent

RT McDonald

Claimant/respondent

Alan Jeffrey Brown (Personal Representative of JL Hayes)

Claimant/respondent

Transco Plc

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Birkenhead County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section O of the 1993 agreement remained part of the contracts of employment after 1995
  2. 2 Whether claimants retained a 'normal depot' after changes in working practices
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge's limitation of cross-examination and refusal to admit certain evidence amounted to a serious procedural irregularity

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's refusal to admit relevant evidence from the defendant and the severe restriction of cross-examination without adequate notice amounted to a serious procedural irregularity, rendering the decision unjust. A new trial is required to ensure fairness.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial ordered

Orders

  • New trial ordered
  • Costs below and of the appeal to be costs in the case