Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Fox & Ors v The General Electric Company Plc & Anor [1995] UKEAT 505_95_1011 (10 November 1995)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/505_95_1011.html
Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 505_95_1011
[New search] [Help]
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE P CLARK
MR D A C LAMBERT
MR T C THOMAS CBE
(2) AEI CABLES DIVISION
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants 1 - 5 MR J O'HARA
Solicitor/Legal Officer
GMB
22-24 Worple Road
Wimbledon
London
SW19 4DD
Mr K Winter
Appellant - 6 NO APPEARANCE/
REPRESENTATION
JUDGE CLARK: This is a preliminary hearing in this matter which raises questions of limitation and also the issue of applicants who, having discontinued one set of proceedings, then started a second set of proceedings and the question arises as to whether that second set of proceedings is frivolous or vexatious.
Mr O'Hara, who has appeared on behalf of the Appellants, takes a further point in relation to that which is that the preliminary hearing which is under appeal, was convened solely for the purpose of considering the limitation point, and not for considering the question of whether or not the second applications were frivolous or vexatious.
We propose to say nothing about the merits of the appeal which will be a matter for determination at the full inter-partes hearing before this Tribunal, but in case it is helpful we identify three matters which we think should be considered at the full appeal.
The first is whether the Section 67(2) escape clause, that is "reasonable practicability" applies where a form IT1 was presented within three months of the dismissal and then withdrawn. We think there might be some analogy with personal injury cases under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, and in particular we have in mind The House of Lords decision in Walkley v Precision Forgings [1979] 1 WLR 606, as compared with Thompson v Brown [1981] 1 WLR 747.
The second issue which we think arises is whether it is relevant that new factors have emerged since the original claims were discontinued? That involves consideration of the Court of Appeal's decision in James W Cook & Co (Wivenhoe) Ltd v Tipper and Others [1990] ICR 716.
Thirdly, the question arises as to whether a second set of proceedings alleging the same complaint as in the first set of proceedings, can be regarded as vexatious or frivolous under the Tribunals Rules, and on this point we note that there are apparently conflicting decisions of this Employment Appeal Tribunal in the cases of Mulvaney v London Transport Executive [1981] ICR 351 and Acrow (Engineers) Ltd v Hathaway [1981] ICR 510. We notice that the Mulvaney case was not cited in the Acrow case which was decided only two months later.
In these circumstances, it seems to us that these matters should be fully ventilated at a full appeal hearing, and we direct that the matter should be listed accordingly.