British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Roberts v National Union Of Journalists [2002] EWCA Civ 514 (22 March 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/514.html
Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 514
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
Strand London WC2 Friday 22nd March 2002 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| ROBERTS | ||
| - v - | ||
| NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS |
____________________
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2HD
Tel: 0171 421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Respondent was not represented and did not attend
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: This is an application for permission to appeal a judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal of 6th September 2001 when it dismissed an interlocutory appeal from anorder of the Employment Tribunal made on 31st July 2001.
- The applicant is 45 years of age and was a member, at the material time, of the National Union of Journalists.
- On 22nd November 1999 he applied to an industrial tribunal, now an Employment Tribunal, complaining that he had been unjustifiably disciplined by his trade union which, on 12th November 1999, had suspended his membership for 6 months. Apparently, the Northern Regional organiser Mr Toner had made a complaint to the union. The applicant was critical not only of the complaint but also of the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings which followed.
- On 14th December 1999 the National Union of Journalists gave notice of appearance and said that the applicant was disciplined for harassing and attempting to intimidate the Northern Regional organiser and officials of the Merseyside Branch. It also pointed out that the complaint panel had ordered an investigation into serious allegations made by both parties at the hearing.
- On 18th April 2000 the applicant made a fresh application to the Employment Tribunal in relation to a decision taken on 28th March 2000 that he be expelled from membership of the union. Basically he alleged that he was the victim of a politically motivated witch- hunt, and he sought an early hearing of both applications.
- In its Notice of Appearance the National Union of Journalists said that the applicant was expelled because of his conduct to full time and lay officials at a hearing postponed at the applicant's request. The National Union of Journalists then served a list of documents. On 30th July 2001 the applicant wrote to the chairman of the Employment Tribunal to complain that the list was not accompanied by the documents themselves. He said he would be relying on documents already served. At that time the hearing had been fixed for 5th October 2001. On 31st July 2001 the Employment Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide a list of documents and to allow inspection of those documents. It is that order which is at the root of the present proceedings.
- On 2nd August 2001 the applicant responded to the Employment Tribunal indicating that he would appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal against the order of 31st July 2001. He also took the opportunity to complain of the lack of progress in finding a convenient early date for hearing of his two applications. On 6th August 2001 his letter to the Employment Appeal Tribunal appealing against the decision of 31st July 2001 was sent together with his complaint in relation to the failure to list his cases for hearing. On the following day, 7th August 2001, the regional chairman of the Employment Tribunal replied to the applicant's letter of 2nd August setting out all that had happened in relation to both his applications. For present purposes, suffice to say, the applicant had sought postponement on six occasions, and the order of 31st July 2001 had been made because of his apparent non-compliance with directions given on 16th March 2001 at a hearing which the applicant had not chosen to attend.
- On 8th August 2001 the National Union of Journalists filed its answer to the applicant's appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal indicating it would rely on the letter of 7th August 2001 to which
- I have just referred. On 27th August 2001 the applicant served his skeleton argument for the proceedings before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. It complained of delay, asserted that he had made sufficient discovery and complained of the union's failure to send documents with their list. It also complained of the Employment Tribunal's refusal to transfer the hearing of his applications to either Liverpool or Manchester. On 31st August 2001 solicitors for the National Union of Journalists sent to the applicant a revised list of documents together with copies of all the documents on the list. He was invited to agree a bundle of documents. They also sent the skeleton argument of the union for the hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. At least, that is what they said they sent, but in fact that skeleton argument was not enclosed.
- On 3rd September 2001 the applicant wrote to the Employment Appeal Tribunal to complain of the union's late disclosure of documents which he said consisted of two unpaginated files. On 5th September 2001 the applicant wrote again to the Employment Appeal Tribunal saying that he had now received the union's skeleton argument for the hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal and made certain comments on the contents of that skeleton argument.
- On 6th September 2001 the hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal took place. The applicant chose not to attend. The tribunal was chaired by Mr Recorder Langstaff QC. It held that the issue of venue in relation to the applicant's two applications had been decided in June 2000 and there had been no appeal against that decision within the time allowed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal declined to extend time for that issue to be further considered. The hearing was still fixed for October.
- Secondly, the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that the Employment Tribunal had power to make the order it did make on 31st July 2001 and had been right to make that order, and that if the applicant needed more time to comply with that order he must apply for an extension of time. Thirdly, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that late delivery of the skeleton argument of the National Union of Journalists was regrettable but it had occasioned the applicant no prejudice. Fourthly, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the National Union of Journalists' application for costs should be refused. Fifthly, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that any application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal should be made within 14 days.
- Unfortunately, the judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal was not contemporaneously recorded because of a defect in the recording equipment and it had to be prepared manually some time later.
- On 19th September 2001 the applicant served his appellant's notice on this court. In that notice he refers to the late service of the union's skeleton argument for the hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. He also refers to the unpaginated documents received by him from the union after he had given notice of appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. He refers to what he describes as bias on the part of the North London Office of Employment Tribunals which, he complains, favoured the National Union of Journalists. He complains yet again, despite the explanations given in the earlier letter, of the delay in hearing his applications and the failure to transfer the hearing of those applications to Manchester. He seeks in his notice listing of the case on dates to suit his convenience in February or March 2002. He sought listing of the appeal in December 2001 or January 2002.
- On 1st December 2001 the applicant wrote to the Court of Appeal complaining of late delivery of the transcript of the hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. That delay was attributable to the fact that there had been a defect in the recording equipment. The case was originally listed for hearing of the application for permission to appeal in December 2001. On 11th December the applicant wrote seeking an adjournment and the case was put back on that occasion. It was re-listed later in the month and that, again, had to be postponed. At that stage it appeared that the applicant was unwell. On 21st December he so indicated. The matter was listed for hearing on 21st January. On that day he sent a fax indicating that he was still unfit to attend and the case was then listed for hearing on 11th February. On 8th February he indicated that he was still unwell and sought a further adjournment which was granted. The case was then listed for hearing today - Friday 22nd March; the applicant was so advised on 14th March. On 18th March, by fax, he sought a further adjournment, indicating he had insufficient time to suit his convenience to attend here today. That application was considered by Lord Justice Peter Gibson and refused. On 19th March the applicant sent a fax to the court indicating, in his view, he was entitled to at least 14 days notice of the listing for his application for permission to appeal and that he did not propose to attend, and he has not done so. In that fax he sought an adjournment of this application until a date in April or thereafter. That fax, like many of the documents of which he is the author, is intemperate and it has not led to any adjournment of this afternoon's hearing.
- The reality is that he has simply chosen not to attend today. The reality also is that even had he chosen to attend, it is clear from the history which I have given that there is no substance in the appeal he seeks to bring, none which could, in my judgment, lead to a hearing before the Court of Appeal which would enjoy any reasonable prospect of success.
- In those circumstances, this application for permission to appeal is refused.