Batty v BSB Holdings (Cudworth) Ltd

On an application for permission to appeal, the Court of Appeal may adjourn the application where substantial unease exists about findings of fact that may have been central to the decision, especially where the evidence may have been misunderstood or material evidence may support a different conclusion. The respondent should have an opportunity to address those concerns. The court may direct that the adjourned permission hearing take place before two Lords Justices, with the appeal to follow if permission is granted.

Mr Batty applied for permission to appeal against Mr Recorder Keily’s order of 17 July 2001 dismissing his claim for wrongful dismissal by BSB Holdings (Cudworth) Ltd. He raised proposed fresh evidence and argued that the recorder had misunderstood evidence about communications concerning his return to work, including evidence affected by his hearing difficulty. He also challenged the finding that he knew he was being called back to work and refused to attend. The central issue was whether those factual concerns justified permission to appeal and further procedural steps.

1. Application adjourned. The court adjourned the application on notice to the respondent for further argument on whether permission to appeal should be granted.
2. Lord Justice Ward was in a state of substantial unease because several findings of fact might have been central to the recorder’s conclusion. The concerns included whether the evidence about Mr Batty’s daughter and the expected return-to-work date had been correctly understood; whether an exchange had been misunderstood because Mr Batty was hard of hearing; and whether the finding that Mr Batty knew he was being called back to work was consistent with the recorder’s finding that a relevant letter had not been passed to him.
3. The application for fresh evidence appeared unlikely to succeed where the evidence concerned matters on which Mr Batty himself had testified and which he could have checked before giving evidence. That provisional view did not prevent the court from requiring further argument on the overall merits of permission.
4. The renewed arguments concerning the contract of employment, telephone records and disclosure remained open. The adjourned hearing was directed to take place before two Lords Justices, with the appeal to follow.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission to appeal was adjourned on notice for further argument. The court directed that the matter be heard before two Lords Justices, with the appeal to follow.
2. Lower court: Mr Recorder Keily dismissed Mr Batty’s wrongful-dismissal claim by an order dated 17 July 2001.