United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 1275_95_1904

Appeal No. EAT/1275/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 19 April 1996

HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE QC

MR J R CROSBY

MRS P TURNER OBE

---

MR D ASTLES          APPELLANT

A G STANLEY LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO ATTENDANCE BY OR

ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


JUDGE B HARGROVE QC: In this case no one appears on behalf of the proposed Appellant. At first sight it seemed to us that there was nothing in this matter, but upon closer examination a point has arisen which, although it has not been taken, does seem to us to be one of some concern.

The Tribunal was placed in this difficult position; that no one appeared before them in the sense that the Applicant did not appear, but he was represented. What the Applicant's representative wanted to do was to present evidence without presenting the Applicant, and it seemed to us absolutely correct when the Tribunal said that that is not a possibility where there are such obvious clashes of fact.

Unfortunately, at the end of the hearing, the Tribunal said this in paragraph 7:

"7. Accordingly, in accordance with provisions of Rule 9(3) Second Schedule Industrial Tribunals (Constitution of Rules and Procedure) Regulations 1993 the Tribunal unanimously decided that the applicant's claim should be dismissed."

On our reading of that, it is at least arguable that that rule can only be invoked when there is neither presence of the particular individual nor presence of a representative. There was a representative present on this occasion and therefore, it is arguable (we say no more than that) that the matters under Rule 9(3) were not open to the Tribunal. Upon that point of law and upon that point only, we will permit this appeal to go forward.