United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 1073_94_0802

Appeal No. PA/1073/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 8 February 1996

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MR J R CROSBY

MR E HAMMOND OBE

---

MR B CARTER T/A HAIR CHARM          APPELLANT

(1) MISS D CHRISTIE

(2) MISS T BENTON          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF           APPELLANT

For the Respondents NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF           RESPONDENTS


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by Mr Carter (trading as Hair Charm) against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Middlesbrough on 19 January, 28 February to 3 March, and 22 to 24 June 1994. In the extended reasons sent to the parties on 13 September 1994, the Tribunal explained why they had reached the unanimous decision that Miss T Benton's complaint of sex discrimination and Miss Debra Christie's complaint of sex discrimination were well-founded, and why Miss Christie's additional claim of constructive unfair dismissal should succeed.

Mr Carter was dissatisfied with the decision. He appealed in a Notice of Appeal served on 21 October 1994. He used the Form 1 prescribed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 in the Schedule which refers to Rule 3. Rule 3 provides:

"(1) Every appeal to the Appeal Tribunal shall be instituted by serving on the Tribunal the following documents:-

(a) a notice of appeal in, or substantially in, accordance with Form 1 or 2 in the Schedule to these Rules"

Paragraph 6 of the Form says this:

"The grounds upon which this appeal is brought are that the industrial tribunal erred in law in that [here set out in paragraphs the various grounds of appeal]"

Those grounds have to be grounds of law, because the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is limited to a question of law in a decision of an Industrial Tribunal or arising in proceedings before an Industrial Tribunal. Mr Carter completed the form himself and signed it. All that he wrote in paragraph 6 of the Notice was this:

"Waiting for papers from barrister and solicitors."

Although that was served in October 1994, the Appeal Tribunal has still not received from Mr Carter a statement of the grounds on which he is appealing the Industrial Tribunal decision.

The correspondence between him and the Appeal Tribunal shows that he was asked by letter of 1 November 1994 to provide further and better particulars of his grounds of appeal within 28 days. As he had not done that within 28 days, or at all, a letter was sent by the Registrar on 9 January 1995, referring to the earlier letter, a copy of which was enclosed, and asking him to let the Tribunal know, within 10 days, whether or not he intended to pursue the appeal against the particulars.

On 13 January, a firm of solicitors, Paul J Watson in Middlesbrough, replied saying that he had been instructed to act on behalf of Mr Carter. He had only received the paper from the previous solicitors a few days ago. Mr Carter was due to see him to apply for Legal Aid. He therefore asked for extra time for provision of the particulars. His instructions were that Mr Carter intended to pursue the appeal.

On 20 January, the solicitor was informed that the proceedings in the Appeal Tribunal were stayed pending the outcome of Mr Carter's legal aid application. The letter concluded:

"Please let us know as soon as that outcome is known."

There was further correspondence which included a request from the solicitors to provide a copy of Mr Carter's Notice of Appeal. In a letter of 3 May, he reminded the Tribunal that he needed a copy of the Notice of Appeal. That was provided on 10 May, along with copies of correspondence with Mr Carter. Nothing was heard for months.

On 5 September the Registrar wrote to the solicitor saying "Please advise me about the present situation regarding the Legal Aid application." A further letter was sent on 11 October, because there was no reply to the September letter. That contained a warning:

In the absence of a reply within 7 days the matter will be set down for disposal."

That threat elicited a letter on 18 October saying that Mr Carter had been refused Legal Aid and his appeal against that refusal had been dismissed. In those circumstances, Mr Carter was now representing himself and further correspondence should be with him.

Accordingly, on 20 October the Registrar wrote to Mr Carter personally, saying:

"If it is your intention to pursue this matter please let us have further and better particulars of the Notice of Appeal within 7 days.

In the absence of a reply within that time the matter will be set down for disposal."

There has since been correspondence with Mr Carter. It is not necessary to read all the letters. What emerges from his letters is that he does intend to pursue the matter. He made this clear in a letter that this Tribunal received at the end of October. He said that he would get a solicitor in due course, as soon as he had the money. He wished to obtain certain papers from the Crown Court, in order to prove that there had been perjured evidence given to the Industrial Tribunal. He said that he would let us know the points of law on his appeal when his solicitor was appointed. He would then be ready to go ahead.

The fact is that nothing in the way of particulars has been received. In response to each request in ensuing correspondence, he repeated the same position; he does want to go on with the appeal; he does not want the case to be set down for disposal. The most recent letter was received in the Tribunal yesterday, after he had been given notice that the matter would be set down for disposal today. He said in yesterday's letter:

"Re my Appeal Hearing for the 8/2/96. I am writing to say I am still waiting for my papers from my solicitor till I receive them then read them to find the points of law I can not proceed with this hearing I am asking for a New Date for my hearing. Thank you."

We have also received a letter from the Stockton & District Advice & Information Service, who are instructed by the Respondents to the appeal and oppose the appeal, but are not able to be present today. Their position is that the Tribunal should dispose of the matter without any further delay.

We are satisfied that that is what we should do. The rules are clear. A Notice of Appeal must be served in a proper form. The proper form requires a statement of grounds. Although this appeal was served as long ago as October 1994, we have still not received any grounds of appeal. Mr Carter has been given generous extensions to enable him to get Legal Aid. He did not get Legal Aid. He has been allowed further extensions to get representation. He still has not come up with any grounds. It would be possible for him to say in his own words what he thought was wrong with this decision of the Industrial Tribunal. If he felt unable to do that himself, he could go to a Citizens Advice Bureau or Law Centre and ask someone to draft the grounds for him. Mr Carter has really not made any real effort to provide what was requested over a year ago. In those circumstances we have decided that the proper course is to dismiss this appeal for failure to serve the Notice in the correct form, or to provide particulars of the grounds requested. The Appeal is dismissed.