United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Le Gros v Southampton & SW Hants Health Authority [1991] UKEAT 626_90_1111 (11 November 1991)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1991/626_90_1111.html
Cite as: [1991] UKEAT 626_90_1111

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

BAILII case number: [1991] UKEAT 626_90_1111

Appeal No. EAT/626/90

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

4 ST. JAMES'S SQUARE, LONDON, SW1 4JU

At the Tribunal

On 11th November 1991

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)

MR J A SCOULLER

MRS P TURNER OBE

MR D I LE GROS APPELLANT

SOUTHAMPTON & SW HANTS HEALTH AUTHORITY RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR D I LE GROS

(Appellant in Person)

MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an Appeal by Mr Le Gros from a Decision of the learned Regional Chairman dated 17th October 1990 in which he refused an application to review a case which had been running for a substantial number of years in his Region.

Mr Le Gros had been employed by the Respondents, the Southampton and South West Hants Health Authority from about 1979. He issued an Originating Application dated 22nd August 1985 in which he alleged that he had been unfairly dismissed.

The Notice of Appearance alleged that he had been dismissed for gross misconduct in that he had made persistently untruthful statements to many people in the Authority's Treasurer's Department.

Secondly, that he had persistently and without substance or justification alleged that senior members and in particular a very senior accountant manager had acted improperly. Such allegations included the view that the senior accountant manager had lied and was not to be trusted.

Thirdly, through such behaviour and conduct he was seriously disruptive in the Treasurer's Department and also that his behaviour demonstrated that he was unreliable and untrustworthy in a Department where such qualities are essential.

A Notice of Appearance was entered which was out of time and by a letter of the 23rd September 1985 a Chairman of Tribunals granted an extension of time sufficient to validate the Notice. Copies of that were sent to the parties as indicated and one of them was sent to Mr Le Gros.

One of the reasons why there had been a slight delay in this matter was that Mr Le Gros was going through the Appeal procedure. However, eventually the matter came on for a hearing during January, March and April 1987. At the initial stages Mr Le Gros had consulted solicitors; they had been acting for him in the September of 1985. However, when it came to the hearing before the Industrial Tribunal he appeared in person and a partner in a firm of solicitors in Southampton appeared for the Respondents.

As we have said this hearing took six days. It was a case where there were conflicts of evidence that the whole case was being looked at in the light of a background which was explained in the full reasons as follows:

"The events which ultimately brought about the applicant's dismissal occurred in spring of 1985. However, the applicant's record was not perfect. There had previously been criticism over his work performance, so much so, that for a lengthy period his superiors required weekly reports on the applicant's performance. There had, in addition, been an incident in December of 1984, which culminated in a lengthy suspension for the applicant; that concerned a dispute with some working colleagues. The upshot of which was that, at least two of the staff in the office said that they would refuse to work again with the applicant. At various times the applicant had raised grievances; they were both numerous and convoluted and, on the evidence we heard, involved the management in an extraordinary amount of time. It is against all that background that we have to consider the facts of the matter which ultimately brought about the applicant's dismissal."

The Tribunal then over some 13 or 14 pages examined the whole of this matter in the greatest detail and with the greatest care. They found the facts, directed themselves entirely correctly in law and rejected the case for the Applicant which had involved serious allegations against a number of those within the ranks of the Respondent Health Authority. They added that the application had little, if any, merit.

There was an issue about some disputed slides for use in a projector. There had been expert evidence that had been carefully laid on by the Health Authority and the whole of this matter is set out in the original Decision of the 22nd April 1987 if anyone should subsequently wish to read the whole history; it makes somewhat sorry reading.

There was an application for a Review from the Applicant, Mr Le Gros; he made that application by a letter dated the 6th May 1987. He raised a number of matters but in particular he raised one matter concerning a Trade Union official, Mr Weyman and whether or not the learned Regional Chairman knew him personally. In a Decision which is dated the 8th May 1987 the learned Chairman deals with care with any such suggestion, and indeed with two other matters. He rejects the application for the Review.

Both the original Decision and the application for Review were the subject of appeals to this Court. In this Court they were both heard on the 8th September 1987, the Court was presided over by the learned President at the time Mr Justice Popplewell together with Mr Ramsay and Miss Pat Smith. They dismissed each of the appeals having heard Mr Le Gros in person on each of those matters.

Thereafter, as the learned Chairman points out in the Decision which is the subject matter of the present appeal, there was some correspondence. He recites the chronology in this way. He indicates the date of the Originating Application:

"On 19th September 1985, a formal notice was sent to the respondent, pointing out that the statutory time limit for entry of an Appearance had expired and on the 23rd September, four days later a Notice of Appearance arrived at the Regional Office. It disclosed the Applicant had exercised a right of Appeal which was within the Respondents normal procedure scheduled for October. In accordance with Rule 3(3) that Notice of Appearance was deemed to include an application for an extension to validate it and that was done."

We have already referred to the letter of 23rd September which indicated that the Chairman of Tribunals had granted an extension.

After the Hearing in 1987 the next formal application is the application for Review which is dated the 13th October 1990, received in the Regional Office on the 15th October. That sets out the grounds on which the Review is sought. It is sought on three grounds as set out by the learned Chairman. First, that the Decision was wrongly made as a result of an error on the part of the Tribunal staff. Secondly, that new evidence had become available since the conclusion of the Hearing which could not have been foreseen and then some six subsidiary grounds, and it is sought to re-open this whole matter and as Mr Le Gros put it to us quite succinctly, he said:

"I have had a hearing over that period of time which should never have been held therefore I have been prejudiced"

The learned Chairman dealt with those three matters, he first of all looked at the new evidence and he said this:

"The new evidence which the applicant alleges has come to light relates to that very matter. It is not new evidence relating to the merits of his case. He refers to conversations he has had with the Tribunal staff, and that he was misinformed that the validation process had been completed correctly."

The learned Chairman then looks at the question of time. He points out that the application for Review is not only over three years out of time but it relates back to an action which occurred some five years ago and at the time the Applicant was in the hands of solicitors being advised and he felt that on that ground alone he would not extend time and that would be sufficient to determine the Decision on the Review. But he also goes on to reject it on its own merits. He looks at the Rule and the Rule is perfectly clear; he looks at Rule 3 and he looks at Rule 13; it is equally clear to us, if one reads it, that there was power to extend time and that time was properly extended so he refuses on that ground. Then he looks at the matter further and at the six grounds set out in the letter applying for Review those are grounds which in essence go back to the original Decision. That original Decision had been the subject of Review; both the Decision and the Review had been carefully examined in this Court any question of an appeal by way of a Preliminary Hearing had been dismissed as disclosing no point of law.

It follows from what we have said in this Judgment that this case involved a great deal of examination and time and trouble. The whole of it was examined with the greatest care, Reviews have been considered and they have been rejected. This latest application, in our judgment is correctly rejected. There was no doubt whatsoever that there was power for the procedure to be carried out as it was carried out. This appeal is dismissed.