Wright v British Telecommunications Plc [1996] UKEAT 961_95_1906 (19 June 1996)

The Tribunal records the parties' positions regarding document production but makes no substantive determination, deferring all disputed matters to the full hearing of the appeal.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [1996] UKEAT 961_95_1906
Parties: Appellant: Kevin Wright; Respondent: British Telecommunications (British Telecom)
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 19 June 1996
Procedural Posture: Employment Appeal / Interlocutory/preliminary Order
Outcome: No final determination; matter deferred to full hearing of the appeal.
Legal Topics: Sex Discrimination, Discovery of Documents, Appeal Procedure

Employment Law Discrimination Law Sex Discrimination Discovery of Documents Appeal Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Kevin Wright

Appellant

British Telecommunications (British Telecom)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Interlocutory/preliminary Order

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in law in finding no sex discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975
2 Whether there was sufficient discovery of documents relevant to the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal records the parties' positions regarding document production but makes no substantive determination, deferring all disputed matters to the full hearing of the appeal.

Court Disposition

No final determination; matter deferred to full hearing of the appeal.

Orders

Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal to produce notes regarding document production.
British Telecom to confirm compliance with document production order.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.