United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 882_94_0310

Appeal No. EAT/882/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 3 October 1994

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE J HULL QC

MRS T MARSLAND

MR T THOMAS CBE

---

MR P TAYLOR          APPELLANT

BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant IN PERSON

For the Respondents MS D KINGDOM

British Airways Plc

X400 Speedbird House (S226)

P O Box 10

Hounslow

TW6 23A


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE J HULL QC: This is an appeal about which we really know very little. Mr Taylor appeals against the decision of a Chairman of Industrial Tribunals refusing to transfer the hearing of an application by him complaining apparently, of unfair dismissal from London to Manchester. I say complaining apparently, because we have not seen his complaint to the Tribunal. We have not seen the answer which has been put in by British Airways, the Respondents, and we have not seen any other documents apart from letters written to us and to others by Mr Taylor himself.

There are several things to be said about this. Apparently the application for a transfer was made only a week before a day which was fixed for the hearing of the case. It was not refused until later and accordingly, it has already led to the hearing being postponed. Moreover, in spite of the fact that as I say, the hearing was imminent in September, Mr Taylor has not been able to give a list of the names and addresses of his witnesses and still less have we heard anything about the Respondents' witnesses.

The Respondents apparently think that London is the appropriate venue. Mr Taylor thinks that Manchester would be better. Manchester is where he lives or rather he lives in Sale, which is close by. He says that two of his 12 witnesses are from Manchester and perhaps one other, including an elderly person who has recovered fortunately from cancer. One or two are from overseas; whether it is more convenient for them to come to London or to Manchester one does not know. We know nothing about his other witnesses. He said he has written to them and not had replies. Apparently, that is a thing which often happens to Mr Taylor. He has written to a great many people seeking assistance and not got any replies. And in all the circumstances it is not at all clear that any material could properly be laid before the Chairman on which he could reach a rational and balanced decision on which was the more convenient venue. Obviously, no Chairman is going to order something to be transferred from one venue to another unless it is plainly shown to him that that would, looking at the interests of all the parties, all witnesses and everybody concerned with the case, including the Tribunal itself, be the convenient and proper thing to do. The burden is on somebody who wants to make that suggestion and in fairness to Mr Taylor, one has to say it was in May, but apparently not before May, that his suggestion was first made.

The Respondents say they have, I think it is, five witnesses; all of them, as it is put, "operating out of Heathrow", and they would have to be taken up to Manchester, although of course they may live almost anywhere. They probably live in the general area of Heathrow, one does not know. As I say, until these matters are laid in front of the Chairman, in a fairly rational way, so that he can appreciate the pros and cons, it is hard to see how he can do more than simply refuse the application on the grounds that nothing has been shown to him which makes it desirable in the judicial sense to transfer it.

One would say again that of course this is an Interlocutory Decision. Interlocutory Decisions are in any event very hard to challenge. It has to be shown to us that we should interfere. It is, on the face of it, the duty of the Tribunal to regulate this procedure and to say where, in fairness, it thinks an application should be heard.

If one of the parties is dissatisfied with the result of the case of course he or she can appeal to us, but to appeal against what is only part of the Tribunal's duties, to make interlocutory findings, is on the face of it, premature. If there is a very strong case that the Chairman has acted on a quite irrational basis, it may well be that we would think it right to interfere, but not only can it not be shown at the moment, it cannot be shown that the Chairman has acted, if I may respectfully say so, on a rational basis, because no material was laid in front of him which would entitle him to reach a proper judicial decision. He simply did not have material on which he could reach any decision so far as we can see. When, and if, that material is laid in front of him, like all Interlocutory Decisions, this one is open to reconsideration. That is another commonplace matter and another strong indication that we should not interfere.

It seems to us that until the Chairman has proper material laid before him to enable him to reach a rational decision on whether to transfer the case, and until he has considered that and given a reasoned decision, it would be wholly out of place and indeed, probably quite unlawful, for us to interfere in any way.

There is nothing for us to interfere with. The Chairman, having heard nothing to persuade him that the case should be transferred, has decided, as an interlocutory matter, that it should not be transferred and although we sympathise with Mr Taylor (he has been ill and he feels he has been treated very unjustly and has been treated very badly by a large number of people) those are not matters which we can consider today.

We simply say that we cannot see any basis at the moment on which we can interfere. We would emphasise that we can interfere, not because we think that something is wrong or because we would reach a different decision, but only if there is an error of law. That is not because we say so, but because Parliament has said that that is the limit of our jurisdiction. Therefore we have no alternative, it seems to us, but to dismiss this appeal today.