United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 168_94_1403

Appeal No. EAT/168/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 14 March 1994

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MR T S BATHO

MR R JACKSON

---

MR S LINDSAY          APPELLANT

CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY

OR REPRESENTATION

ON BEHALF OF THE

APPELLANT


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is a matter which we have been asked to deal with in the absence of representation from either side. It is, so far as we are able to gather from the papers, an appeal by Mr Lindsay in his dispute with the Cumbria County Council and others. He has brought proceedings under the Sex Discrimination Act. During the course of those proceedings two rulings have been made which Mr Lindsay wishes to challenge on appeal.

The first ruling is a direction of the Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal that there should be a pre-hearing assessment of the case. That was originally fixed for 9 December 1993 but we understand now that it has been put back to 16 March 1994. A pre-hearing review will then take place. The second direction given by the Tribunal is in the form of a refusal by the Tribunal to strike out the Notice of Appearance to the claim. In the view of the Tribunal a full hearing was necessary for the purposes of dealing with the matters raised in the Notice of Appearance.

We have read the voluminous papers submitted. They include detailed letters from Mr Lindsay. We have reached the conclusion that the appeals against both directions should be dismissed, since the appeals are premature and the decisions, which are the subject of the appeal, disclose no error of law.

As to the pre-hearing assessment, that is a matter within the discretion of the Chairman. The appeal against his ruling is premature for this reason. If the pre-hearing assessment results in a decision that the matter should go to a full hearing there will be nothing for Mr Lindsay to complain about. If the pre-hearing assessment results in an Order which prevents him from proceeding to a full hearing, then it is open to him to appeal against that. Similarly, the appeal against the direction that the Notice of Appearance should not be struck out is also premature. At the hearing a full investigation will be made into the facts and legal arguments. If Mr Lindsay succeeds, he will have nothing to appeal against. If he fails, he may then have something to appeal against.

Both appeals are premature. No error of law has been identified. The appeals will be dismissed.