Ali v Wojnowski [1993] UKEAT 834_92_0303 (3 March 1993)
The Tribunal exercised its discretion judicially in response to the employer's non-compliance with the order for production of documents, and there was no evidence of improper exercise of that discretion.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1993] UKEAT 834_92_0303
- Parties
- Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Employer
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 03 March 1993
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Preliminary Hearing
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Production of Documents, Tribunal Discretion, Non Compliance With Orders
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Appellant
Appellant
Employer
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Preliminary Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Industrial Tribunal properly exercised its discretion in response to non-compliance with an order for production of documents
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal exercised its discretion judicially in response to the employer's non-compliance with the order for production of documents, and there was no evidence of improper exercise of that discretion.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- No further step to be taken in this matter
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
JUDGMENT PRELIMINARY HEARING Revised APPEARANCES For the Appellant MISS S T JAHAN (Of Counsel) Messrs Virdi & Co Solicitors 124 Wandsworth High Street London SW18 4JP JUDGE HARGROVE QC: This is a Notice of Appeal from a decision of the Industrial Tribunal of the 3rd September 1992. There had been an adjournment of hearing previously, on the 14th August 1992, when certain Orders had been made on the production of documents. Suffice it to say that that was not done. On the 3rd September 1992 the Tribunal took a very severe view of the attitude of the employer in this respect. It is fair to say the document, which we have seen placed before us, is not a long document. It was of course vital to the proceedings, it was presented at 9.55 am on the morning of the hearing. The Industrial Tribunal took the view that it was a flagrant disregard of an Order made. There was a failure to alert the Tribunal that there was any problem with the documents. The excuse given was that, first of all, he was acting by himself; that he had only contacted solicitors the day before and that the documents had been lost in post. The Tribunal had to exercise their discretion and exercise it judicially, we can see no evidence whatsoever in this matter that the Tribunal did not do precisely that. It was within the discretion of the Tribunal. It might not have been a decision which would have been taken by everyone, but one they were entitled to take, and we order that no further step be taken in this matter. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII