United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 731_95_2807

Appeal No. EAT/731/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 28 July 1995

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUCKEY

MR A E R MANNERS

MR S M SPRINGER MBE

---

MRS R KING          APPELLANT

(1) DORSET COUNTY COUNCIL

(2) UNISON & UNISON WELFARE          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant

NO APPEARANCES BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT OR THE           RESPONDENTS

---

For the Respondents


 


MR JUSTICE TUCKEY: These are two appeals from various interlocutory orders made by the Regional Chairman and Acting Regional Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at Southampton.

Essentially, the Tribunal decided to hold preliminary hearings and fixed dates for such hearings in two related complaints of sex discrimination by Mrs King.

There is a very long history to the matter but briefly, Mrs King was employed by the Dorset County Council as the Manager of a Day Centre, until she was dismissed in May 1993. There have been many proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal resulting from that dismissal. The latest round started following the dismissal or discontinuance of earlier proceedings by Mrs King.

The latest proceedings were started in April 1995 against the Dorset County Council, her former employers and against UNISON, who were Mrs King's union. Separate complaints of sex discrimination were made against those two organisations who requested preliminary hearings to raise a variety of points including points about whether the complaints were vexatious and frivolous. The Chairman decided that there should be preliminary hearings in both cases and after a number of postponements (one of which was based on the fact that the Applicant, Mrs King produced a medical certificate) they have now been re-listed for preliminary hearing on 5 and 8 September 1995 respectively.

Mrs King has appealed against those interlocutory orders. She has also sought to have the hearing of her appeal adjourned because she says she is ill. The appeal is to be heard on paper and submissions have been received from the Respondents. Mrs King has submitted written notices of appeal which we will come to in a moment, but the first question we have to decide is whether we should adjourn the hearing of the appeal. We do not think it would be right to do so. This is a procedural appeal and the Tribunal wishes to proceed with the matter in September. We do not think it is right to postpone the hearing of the appeal. Despite what she says, Mrs King is clearly able to make submissions in writing.

The appeal in the case of the Dorset County Council says that the Chairman should have given written reasons for the interlocutory orders he made and that he refused to make witness orders. There was no requirement for him to give written reasons for the decisions which he made. As to the refusal of witness orders, it is clear from the file that he has simply said it is premature to make such orders until the conclusion of the preliminary hearings.

The Dorset Appeal also alleges that the Chairman has acted ultra vires and unreasonably. A variety of other points are taken which show that Mrs King is no stranger to legal concepts and the rules of these Tribunals.

The UNISON appeal raises some of the same points, but again complains essentially about the decision to fix a preliminary hearing.

We have considered all the points raised by Mrs King. There is, in our judgment, nothing whatsoever in any of them. These are pre-eminently cases in which there should be a preliminary hearing as soon as possible, in order to see whether there really is anything in Mrs King's latest complaints and if there is, to sort out some orderly way in which the Tribunal can proceed to decide them. The decision of the Chairman to hold preliminary hearings was obviously within his discretion. It was, we think, obviously right and there is no conceivable basis upon which we, as an Appeal Tribunal, can or should interfere with it.