United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 667_95_2607

Appeal No. EAT/667/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 26th July 1995

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUCKEY

MR R H PHIPPS

MRS P TURNER OBE

---

MRS M WINSPER          APPELLANT

WEST LAMBETH COMMUNITY CARE NHS TRUST          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR HAYWARD

(Representative)

For the Respondents MR CHRISTIAN DINGWALL

(Solicitor)

Le Brasseur J Tickle

Solicitors

Drury House

34-43 Russell Street

London WC2B 5HA


 


MR JUSTICE TUCKEY: At an earlier hearing we dealt with an appeal from the Interlocutory Order of the London (South) Industrial Tribunal (chaired by Mrs Mason) fixing a date for the hearing of Mrs Winsper's application for a redundancy payment. She no longer pursues her appeal against the other parts of this order. There is a further appeal against another order made at the same preliminary hearing where Mrs Mason said:

"In my opinion this Originating Application has no reasonable prospect of success. The Applicant is ordered to pay a deposit of £50 as a condition of continuing these proceedings. Furthermore, the Applicant is warned that if she pursues this claim, the Tribunal is likely to order her to pay the Respondent's costs. The Applicant's application for costs of this hearing is refused."

Essentially what is said on her behalf is that this was an unfair restriction to place upon Mrs Winsper who wishes to pursue her claim before the Tribunal without the threat that she might have to pay costs hanging over her head.

We are concerned of course only to see whether there is an error of law in the Industrial Tribunals decision. It is clearly within the discretion of a Chairman to make an order of this kind. Unless it can be demonstrated therefore that there were no grounds upon which she could make this order or that she mis-directed herself this Appeal Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere. We can detect no such error so this appeal must be dismissed.

We should add, however, that at the end of the day, all questions of costs are for the Industrial Tribunal once they have determined the merits of the application. If, as Mrs Winsper contends, she is due money and she is successful before the Tribunal then of course there will be no question of her having to pay any costs. It all depends upon the outcome and it is only at that stage that questions of costs will finally be resolved.

This appeal must therefore be dismissed, which therefore means that Mrs Winsper's application will and should proceed to a full hearing as soon as possible.