United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 760_95_0205

Appeal No. EAT/760/95

EAT/825/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 2 May 1996

HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE QC

MR K M HACK JP

MRS T A MARSLAND

---

MR R PLETTELL          APPELLANT

ROLLS-ROYCE PLC          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR N SMITH

(Of Counsel)

Messrs Lindley Johnstone

Solicitors

3 St Stephen Street

Bristol

BS1 1EF

For the Respondents MR B NAPIER

(Of Counsel)

Messrs Cartwrights

Solicitors

PO Box 18

Marsh House

11 Marsh Street

Bristol

BS99 7BB


 


JUDGE HARGROVE QC: This case has been listed and notified since 1 March 1996. Adequate time has been given, bearing in mind that this is an appeal which was launched in July 1995. There was a Preliminary Hearing in November. In November, Mr Plettell appeared in person and had the benefit of having the President carefully direct him about what should happen. It is not until 23 March that he approaches solicitors, in solicitors who are before us today. I am told that he did approach various bureaux who offer some form of legal assistance before that. I want to emphasise and make it absolutely clear that the delay in this case is that of Mr Plettell. It is quite insufferable that delay of this nature should occur. There is no question in this case but that the solicitors here have acted with great promptitude, so has Counsel. The Legal Aid Board might have acted a little more quickly, but bearing in mind the weight of work, it is difficult to criticise them; the fact that they only issued the certificate on Tuesday of this week, having had the application made on 12 April.

Mr Smith tells me that he will be professionally embarrassed owing to the fact that he has virtually no adequate instructions. Again, I emphasise that there is no blame attached to those who instruct him professionally. He cannot really conduct this case before us. Mr Napier has said with quite considerable candour that he is not embarrassed by being prejudiced, but his clients very sensibly, this being the third occasion upon which they have had to deal through the industrial courts with Mr Plettell. They wish to get the matter finished and out of the way. Every single day before this Court is a further expense for them.

The Industrial Members of this Court are offended by the lack of respect shown in not having this case ready. However, bearing all the factors in mind, we have decided that it would be appropriate in this case, on the basis that it cannot be conducted by Mr Smith in front of us with any degree of informed matters being in his hands, accordingly we shall grant an adjournment, but what we are going to do is to say that we are going to leave for the final hearing any question of an application for costs in this matter. We say that whilst knowing that there is a Legal Aid Certificate, because of course that is no complete shield to those who delay in front of courts.