Northampton Borough Council v Wolstenholme, Court of Appeal - United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal, October 04, 2018, [2018] UKEAT 0130_18_0410

Resolution Date:October 04, 2018
Issuing Organization:United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
Actores:Northampton Borough Council v Wolstenholme
 
FREE EXCERPT

Copyright 2018

Appeal No. UKEAT/0130/18/RN

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

FLEETBANK HOUSE, 2-6 SALISBURY SQUARE, LONDON EC4Y 8AE

At the Tribunal

On 4 October 2018

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE MARTYN BARKLEM

(SITTING ALONE)

NORTHAMPTON BOROUGH COUNCIL APPELLANT

MS M WOLSTENHOLME RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

UKEAT/0130/18/RN

APPEARANCES

SUMMARY

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Disclosure

An Employment Tribunal erred in law in ordering disclosure which would, if given, have put the Respondent in breach of section 19(5) of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, by which the Respondent was prevented from further disclosing information obtained by it from HMRC pursuant to subsection 19(2) except in certain circumstances and with the consent of the Commissioners of HMRC. No reasons for the decision had been given despite there having been sought.

UKEAT/0130/18/RN

- 3 -

HIS HONOUR JUDGE MARTYN BARKLEM

  1. In this Judgment I shall refer to the parties as they were before the Employment Tribunal.

  2. This is the Full Hearing of an appeal brought by the Respondent against an Order made by Employment Judge Ord on 29 May 2018, whereby the Respondent was ordered to deliver to the Claimant all documents received from and sent to HMRC regarding the Claimant, redacted as required but left unredacted insofar as is necessary so that the evidence upon which the Respondent relied in relation to the matters about which the Complainant complains in these proceedings can be seen and understood by her.

  3. The Claimant was dismissed (and I am describing this in the briefest of terms) for undertaking work other than the job she was doing for the Respondent, in breach of a requirement that she seek permission to undertake any such employment. In her ET1, which is handwritten but clearly legible, the Claimant admits having taken secondary employment, and says that, at the disciplinary hearing, she said ``some stupid things and denied secondary employment''. Given these admissions I am not sure to what issue the disclosure ordered goes, in any event. The Claimant has appeared today and has addressed me briefly, and I think following our discussion we are both a lot clearer as to what the issues might be, but these plainly will have to be resolved elsewhere.

  4. As part of its investigation into the Claimant having undertaken secondary employment (and, I infer, possible criminal offences, as HMRC would only have been able to provide information in relation to...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL