United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 97_95_0504

Appeal No. EAT/97/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 5th April 1995

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BUCKLEY

MRS T MARLAND

MR T C THOMAS CBE

---

MR O EKWURU          APPELLANT

LONDON GENERAL BUS CO.          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

MR O EKWURU - THE APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


MR JUSTICE BUCKLEY: Mr Ekwuru was employed for a very short time by the London General Bus Company. Although we do not have the full details. It appears that he was dismissed on the basis that, he was not going to make a suitable bus driver. Mr Ekwuru complained to an Industrial Tribunal at London (South) in December of last year. He complained on the grounds of wrongful dismissal, unfair dismissal and clearly on the grounds, as he alleged, that, the dismissal was because of his race and that, he was therefore raising the grounds of racial discrimination.

The matter went before the Tribunal. Having heard some of the evidence at least, they decided to adjourn in order to afford Mr Ekwuru the opportunity of seeking advice and getting representation. It is quite clear from the reasons given by the Tribunal that, they had run into problems with Mr Ekwuru. Perhaps he did not fully understand the procedure. The Tribunal was having difficulty in persuading him to answer questions as opposed to asking questions. But be that as it may. They fixed a new hearing for December. Mr Ekwuru knew of that hearing, because twice he contacted the Tribunal asking them to adjourn it, and they refused. He made it plain, so he tells us, and we accept, that, he was not going to attend in December. His reason for that, was that he wished to pursue an interlocutory appeal to this Tribunal. In the event, he never did so.

The Tribunal proceeded in December to dispose of the matter. The Respondents attended and Mr Ekwuru did not, true to his word. And as the Tribunal say; they considered the application, the evidence the applicant had given on the first occasion, the written representations made by him and they reached their conclusion, which was the only thing they could do. Their conclusion was to dismiss the application and because they felt, in the circumstances, we have very briefly described, that Mr Ekwuru had acted unreasonably, they made an order that, he pay £250.00 towards the costs of the Respondent.

Now Mr Ekwuru appeals to this Tribunal, in effect, against everything, or as much as he can, at any event.

We have been unable to identify any real point of law arising from the history, which we have given, and been unable to see where the Tribunal has gone wrong, or can be criticised. Save, perhaps, in one area only. That is, that, we are a little troubled about order for costs. It was an order made in Mr Ekwuru's absence, and, as he tells us, and we would presume, or assume, from the circumstances, without any enquiry as to his means. Mr Ekwuru tells us that, he cannot afford to pay those costs. He does not accept that it was a reasonable order in any event. But that, is perhaps another matter.

We are very doubtful whether that, raises, strictly speaking, a point of law. Because where a party does not attend, and does deliberately not attend, it must be open to a Tribunal to make such orders as it thinks fit. If it is making a financial order, it may afford the party against whom it is made an opportunity of attending. The Tribunal did not expressly do that here. Perhaps they did not need to, because there is a power of review and Mr Ekwuru could have invited the Tribunal to review that order, since it was made in his absence. That is under Schedule 1 Rule 11 the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993. Well there we are.

What we propose to do is this. We have advised Mr Ekwuru that, if he wishes to pursue the matter of costs, that is, if he wishes to argue that he cannot afford those costs or that, the amount was too high in any event, he should apply to the Tribunal to review that order. Ask them to give him an opportunity to be heard, or at the very least, to receive written representations from him. He could perhaps, put his arguments or representations in a letter, if he wished to do so. That, is something which is up to him to do. We cannot take that any further. All that we can do, and do do, is with respect, to the Chairman of the Tribunal, to urge him to consider whether that aspect of the matter should be reviewed. We do not say that, in any way to pre-judge the outcome of that review. But simply to urge the Chairman to consider receiving from Mr Ekwuru any representations on the costs point that, he wishes to make. If that is done, it would then be for the Chairman, of course, or the Tribunal, to make their own decision. It is not for us to impose our will on that, in any way. We would hope that, the Chairman would respond to that suggestion from us. It will now be up to Mr Ekwuru to pursue the matter.

----------------

Mr Ekwuru the only other thing is this; if you are going to pursue that matter, bearing in mind that, you had fourteen days originally, and you are now about three months past that, it really is important that you act quickly. Because if you do not, you are likely to be met with the argument that, there is yet further delay and a reluctance to review on that ground. So what I would suggest you do, it is a matter for you, I would suggest that, you either speak or write to the Tribunal at once. Tell them that you are asking for a review, and that, they will be receiving a note of our judgment, which deals with that point. So that, you cannot be criticised for any delay, and they know what is happening.