Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham
Ms Vaughan brought various claims against her employer. She wanted to rely on 39 hours of covert recordings she had made of contacts and meetings - including disciplinary hearings - between her and the Council. She claimed that the recordings would prove that the employer's notes were inaccurate, although she didn't go into more detail.
The tribunal refused to allow this evidence. The tapes would first need to be independently transcribed and that would have a disproportionate effect on costs, the tribunal said.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the tribunal had been right not to allow the evidence because Ms Vaughan had not established its relevance. The tribunal did not have anything to go on; Ms Vaughan hadn't been specific about what the tapes revealed.
But the EAT went on to be a little critical of the Judge's reasoning and to make some useful points.
First, recordings needn't necessarily be independently transcribed before a decision on admissibility can be made. As a first step Ms Vaughan should have given the Council her own transcript, along with the tapes and the Council could then have decided whether or not to dispute the accuracy.
Second, the fact that these recordings were covert was distasteful but doesn't mean they were inadmissible. If Ms Vaughan were to now make a more focussed application identifying parts of the recordings to be admitted in evidence then the outcome could be different. That second bite of the cherry would be allowed if in the interests of justice.
Ms Vaughan brought various claims against her employer. She wanted to rely on 39 hours of covert recordings she had made of contacts and meetings - including disciplinary hearings - between her and the Council. She claimed that the recordings would prove that the employer's notes were inaccurate, although she didn't go into more detail.
The tribunal refused to allow this evidence. The tapes would first need to be independently transcribed and that would have a disproportionate effect on costs, the tribunal said.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the tribunal had been right not to allow the evidence because Ms Vaughan had not established its relevance. The tribunal did not have anything to go on; Ms Vaughan hadn't been specific about what the tapes revealed.
But the EAT went on to be a little critical of the Judge's reasoning and to make some useful points.
First, recordings needn't necessarily be independently transcribed before a decision on admissibility can be made. As a first step Ms Vaughan should have given the Council her own transcript, along with the tapes and the Council could then have decided whether or not to dispute the accuracy.
Second, the fact that these recordings were covert was distasteful but doesn't mean they were inadmissible. If Ms Vaughan were to now make a more focussed application identifying parts of the recordings to be admitted in evidence then the outcome could be different. That second bite of the cherry would be allowed if in the interests of justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment