At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)
MISS A MADDOCKS OBE
MR R H PHIPPS
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE OR
REPRESENTATION BY THE APPELLANT
MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mr Christopher Hatton against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at London (North) on 13 August 1993. The Tribunal gave full reasons to the parties on 14 October 1993 for their unanimous decision that Mr Hatton was fairly dismissed by the Respondent, Romford Office & Commercial Removals Ltd.
The preliminary hearing of that appeal was fixed for today. We received a letter from Mr Hatton saying that he enclosed supporting documentation for the preliminary hearing, but he would be unable to get time off work to attend the hearing in person. He is not represented. We have read the papers to find out whether there is an arguable point of law in the case.
We have decided that we should not proceed to deal with this case fully because there are aspects of it on which further procedures need to be completed before a Tribunal can adjudicate on the appeal. This matter should proceed to a full hearing subject to the following terms.
In the amended notice of appeal dated 28 October 1993, there are, among the grounds of appeal relied on by Mr Hatton, complaints about the way in which the hearing was conducted by the Industrial Tribunal. He complains that the Tribunal allowed the Respondent to give hearsay evidence and the Tribunal relied on that hearsay evidence in the findings of fact. More particularly, the Chairman misconducted himself at the hearing by repeatedly interrupting the proceedings and refusing on many occasions to hear from the Applicant.
Normally, when complaints are made about the way in which the Members of the Tribunal have conducted themselves at the hearing, the Appellant is required to state in a detailed Affidavit the complaints he is making. That Affidavit is then provided to the Industrial Tribunal for the Chairman and the appropriate lay Members to comment on the allegations. It is only if that procedure is followed that this Appeal Tribunal is able to adjudicate on the question whether there has been any error of law in the manner in which the case has been dealt with by the Industrial Tribunal. It does not appear that that procedure has been followed here. We have a letter dated March 1994, written by the Chairman to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. It does not comment on the complaints made about the conduct of the hearing. It sets out certain matters of fact, which were relevant to the Tribunal's decision, which was based on the requirements of the British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379.
This matter cannot proceed unless the following procedures are gone through. First, this case will proceed to a full hearing. Secondly, within 28 days of being notified of our decision, Mr Hatton must lodge with this Tribunal a detailed Affidavit elaborating on his complaints in the amended notice of appeal that the Chairman misconducted himself by interruptions and refusing to hear from the Applicant and that the Tribunal erred in allowing hearsay evidence to be given.
When that Affidavit is received, it is to be sent to the Chairman of the Tribunal at London (North) for him to comment upon. When his comments have been received, the case will be ready to be set down for a full hearing.