United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 797_94_1605

Appeal No. EAT/797/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 16 May 1995

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MISS C HOLROYD

MR N D WILLIS

---

MRS S C WARD          APPELLANT

INLAND REVENUE          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATIONS


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an application for the review of a decision of this Tribunal in the case of Mrs S C Ward against the Inland Revenue. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has power to review its own decisions under Rule 33 of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 on a number of grounds, including where the interests of justice require such review. This matter was first before the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 22 February 1995, when a preliminary hearing was fixed of the appeal by Mrs Ward, against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at London (South) in March and June 1994. The Industrial Tribunal dismissed Mrs Ward's claim for unfair dismissal against the Inland Revenue. The position at the last hearing before this Tribunal was that, although notified of the hearing, Mrs Ward did not attend and she was not represented. This Tribunal invited Counsel, who was present in Audit House under the Employment Law Bar Association Scheme, for representation, to address the Tribunal on Mrs Ward's appeal. It was made clear that he was not asked to represent her, only to assist the Tribunal in seeing whether any of the grounds of appeal listed in Mrs Ward's appeal disclosed an arguable point of law.

After dealing with various points on the papers and various submissions of Counsel, we decided that there was no arguable point of law in the appeal. We therefore dismissed the appeal. The reasons are set out in full in the judgment given on that day. Subsequently Mrs Ward expressed dissatisfaction with the procedure which had been adopted. She took objection to the fact that Counsel had been invited to address arguments in relation to her appeal, without her knowledge or approval. We think her criticisms were a misunderstanding of the nature of the assistance that Counsel was asked to give to the Tribunal on that occasion. Nevertheless, we decided that, as Mrs Ward had not been present on the last hearing, she should be given a further opportunity to attend and make her case out personally. She was informed in April that this hearing would take place today at 10.30 a.m. No further communication was received from her. When 10.30 a.m. arrived, Mrs Ward was not present. We asked the Associate to make a call on the telephone to see if there was some reason why Mrs Ward was not here. There was no reply at the number we were given for Mrs Ward's home. We adjourned the matter until just after 2.00 p.m. to see if Mrs Ward had turned up during the course of the day; she has not. In these circumstances the only course which we can adopt on this review is to dismiss the application. The result is that, the order which we made dismissing her appeal on 27 February 1995 remains in force.

The position must be clearly stated. If an Applicant wishes to have a review, that Applicant must either turn up in person to present the case, or if unable to do that, must ask for an adjournment and state the grounds for it; or must arrange for representation. None of those things have been done. The review application is dismissed.