Hillman v London General Transport Services Ltd [1998] UKEAT 498_97_2306 (23 June 1998)

JUDGMENT Revised © Copyright 1998 APPEARANCES For the Appellant MR P DIAMOND (Of Counsel) The Solicitor Stockwell & Clapham Law Centre 57-59 Old Town London SW4 OJQ For the Respondents MR D WAGSTAFF (Solicitor) Treviot House 186-192 High Road Ilford Essex IG1 1LR JUDGE HULL QC: We are all satisfied that all our Members are capable of approaching this matter in an entirely objective and judicial manner, and would do so and are determined to do so, but at the same time we understand what has been said to us. We understand, although we are not concerned with it at all, that this is a matter which may be politically sensitive and therefore the misgivings expressed, although we do not agree with them, are not, if I may respectfully say so, irrational, or anything of that sort. If there are such misgivings, then we wish, so to speak, to go the extra mile, to make sure that at the end of the case, whether people agree with our decision or not, it is perceived to be entirely unpolitical and reached simply on legal principles because we are a Court of Law, and although specialised, nothing but a Court of Law. In those circumstances we propose to give effect to what has been said by Mr Diamond; that is to say, to ask for this case to be re-listed, with particular reference to the fact that a Member, and we think there may be one other Member of our Tribunal (not sitting today), who has a connection with these regulations and their drafting, should not take part in any further sitting of this Tribunal to decide this matter. We feel that had Skeleton Arguments been filed at the proper time, that is to say fourteen days before the hearing, this matter might well have occurred to us and we would say (and this is, I think, the third time in a fortnight that I have said this) we place great importance on the timeous filing of Skeleton Arguments, which very often result in enormous savings of time at the hearing in this and many other ways; very frequently identify points which can be dealt with in advance but which cause delay and embarrassment if they are raised for the first time at the hearing. However, for the moment Mr Diamond, all I have to say is that we give effect to what you have asked us to do by adjourning. I am conscious that you did not put it as high as an application but you expressed misgivings that we do not propose to overlook any misgivings of that sort. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII