United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 720_94_0710

Appeal No. EAT/720/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 7th October 1994

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MR A C BLYGHTON

MR A D SCOTT

---

MR A TAYLOR          APPELLANT

REUTERS LIMITED          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant IN PERSON


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is the Preliminary Hearing of an Appeal by Mr A Taylor against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at London North on the 16th June 1994.

For the full reasons contained in the Decision sent to the parties on the 30th June 1994, the Industrial Tribunal unanimously decided that Mr Taylor's claims against his former employers Reuters Limited alleging unfair dismissal by way of unfair selection for redundancy and sex discrimination failed and his claims were dismissed.

Mr Taylor was dissatisfied with that Decision and appealed by Notice of Appeal dated the 27th July 1994. The ground of his appeal was as follows:

"As I was unable to attend the Tribunal Hearing, the decision was taken in the absence of my evidence and based purely on the "evidence" of the Respondent. This therefore cannot possibly be a Fair and proper hearing or decision. I feel that this is wrong in Law as both lots of evidence should be heard."

The purpose of this Preliminary Hearing is to decide whether the points made by Mr Taylor in that Notice of Appeal are arguable points of law to be dealt with at a full hearing of the Industrial Tribunal attended by the Respondents, as well as by Mr Taylor.

At the oral hearing today, Mr Taylor appeared in person and reiterated that the two points he makes on this appeal are, first, that the decision was made in his absence and only on the basis of the Respondents' evidence, which he disputed, and, secondly, there was no valid reason on the part of the Industrial Tribunal for refusing the Application he had made for a postponement of the hearing. The position about attendance of the hearing is explained by the Industrial Tribunal in paragraph 1 of the Full Reasons. The paragraph reads:

"The Applicant has not attended today. He sent a message by fax dated 15 June 1994 at about 15.21 hours in which he said; "I would like to request that the Tribunal for the above case is postponed - as I was informed on Monday evening, that two of my vital witnesses cannot attend. I telephoned your office yesterday and posted off a letter yesterday morning, informing you." There is no letter on the file but after his phone call, the Respondents' representatives were contacted. They were ready to go ahead and stated that there were three witnesses ready to give evidence and large bundles of documents had been prepared. The request was placed before the Duty Chairman who refused the postponement on the basis that the Notice of Hearing was sent out as long ago as 26 March 1994 and the Applicant had thus plenty of time to organise his witnesses. We would add that a party to proceedings in the Tribunal has the right to apply for witness orders against witnesses if there are difficulties in the way of their attending. The Applicant or his wife was notified that the postponement was refused."

In the circumstances described by the Industrial Tribunal, it was incumbent on Mr Taylor, to attend at the hearing fixed for the 16th June. If he had attended he could himself have given evidence in support of his claim against Reuters Limited. If he found himself in difficulties with other witnesses whom he considered vital, he could have renewed his application for an adjournment on that ground. The fact is that Mr Taylor, having been refused a postponement, simply did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal had a discretion to refuse an adjournment. There was no error on their decision.

In those circumstances there was no error of law on the part of the Industrial Tribunal in proceeding with the hearing, hearing the evidence of the Respondents and reaching the decision they did. The matter would have been different if they had proceeded in that way, without first notifying Mr Taylor that there was going to be a Hearing on that day. He had been notified of the Hearing date. He was refused a postponement and he did not attend.

The truth is that the error in this case was not an error on the part of the Industrial Tribunal in law. It was an error on the part of Mr Taylor in failing to attend the hearing of which he had been given full notice. In these circumstances there is no arguable point of law on the Appeal. It will therefore be dismissed.

We mention in conclusion, that it is open to Mr Taylor to seek a review from the Industrial Tribunal of the decision. Under Rule 11 of the 1993 Industrial Tribunals Constitution of Rules and Procedure Regulations the Industrial Tribunal has power, on the Application of Mr Taylor, to review a decision made in the absence of Mr Taylor. He is out of time for making that application, but he can make an application to extend the time. It will be necessary for him to put before the Industrial Tribunal the background to his non-attendance at the hearing and to give details to the Industrial Tribunal of what his evidence would have been had he attended, and what would have been the evidence of the witnesses that he was proposing to call. If he does that, the Industrial Tribunal has a discretion to decide whether or not to grant him a review. It may in that way be possible for him to have his side heard.

It is not, we emphasise, for us to decide whether the Industrial Tribunal should grant him a review. That is a matter for them. They will decide it on the basis of the material that Mr Taylor puts before them. We hope that is helpful to Mr Taylor. For the reasons stated we cannot assist him further on this Appeal which is dismissed.