United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 761_95_2401

Appeal No. EAT/761/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 24 January 1996

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MR A E R MANNERS

MR G H WRIGHT MBE

---

MISS I F SCOTT          APPELLANT

SOUTH THAMES CORPORATION          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MISS I F SCOTT

IN PERSON


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This appeal has been set down for disposal. It is an appeal by Miss Scott against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at London South on 6 April 1995. The Tribunal heard a complaint by Miss Scott that she had been unfairly dismissed by the Respondent, South Thames Corporation. The extended reasons for the decision, sent to the parties on 15 May 1995, explained why, in the unanimous view of the Tribunal, Miss Scott's complaint should be dismissed.

Miss Scott appealed against the decision. She served on the Appeal Tribunal on 29 June a notice of appeal dated 10 June in which she says that she appeals against the decision. The grounds upon which the appeal are brought are that there are errors of law by the Industrial Tribunal. She says:

"grounds following, but papers, including my letter to the Chairwoman, may give an indication. A new solicitor is handling this."

There was then correspondence between the Appeal Tribunal and Miss Scott about her failure to comply with the rule that a notice of appeal should be in a form stating the various grounds on which the appeal is brought. An appeal against an industrial tribunal's decision can only be brought to this Tribunal on questions of law. The notice of appeal must, in order to comply with Rule 3(1)(a) of the 1993 Rules be in, or substantially in, accordance with the forms in the schedule to the Rules. The form in the schedule to the Rules provides that the various grounds of appeal must be set out in the notice.

Miss Scott was informed that her notice of appeal did not comply. She was given extensions of time in order to comply with, because she informed the Tribunal that she was applying for legal aid.

The case was set down for disposal today because the requirements of the Rules have still not been observed. We have been informed by Miss Scott that her application for legal aid has been refused, but she has heard, in the last few days, that in two weeks' time money should be available to her from the Teachers' Pensions Agency, the TPA. That would enable her to instruct a solicitor and arrange legal representation. She wrote a letter to the Tribunal dated 22 January saying this:

"I have just heard from the TPA that my lump sum will be available. In the interests of justice, I hope that you will therefore be able to postpone the hearing to enable me to obtain legal representation.

If this is impossible, I shall attend. Whatever my deficiencies in advocacy, I am sure the judge will see that the proceedings are conducted in a correct and proper manner. The former proceedings were not."

Miss Scott attended today. She informed us that she needs a month in which to instruct a solicitor to get legal advice and representation and to submit to this Tribunal the grounds of her appeal in compliance with the Rules. She gave an account, during the course of the discussions, of her complaints against the Respondent and against the Industrial Tribunal which heard the proceedings. We informed her that, even if she is not able to get advice and representation from a solicitor, free legal advice on employment matters is available from the Citizens Advice Bureau and also from various law centres and legal advice centres. If there is any difficulty about her obtaining paid professional advice, she should, as a matter of urgency, seek to obtain advice from a source which will give free legal advice.

We propose to allow Miss Scott until 23 February, just over four weeks, in which to submit grounds of appeal to comply with the Rules. Those grounds may be submitted by her in person. They may be submitted by a solicitor, instructed by her, with the funds which she hopes will be available within the next two weeks. Or they may be submitted if there are difficulties in instructing a solicitor, by a Citizens Advice Bureau, law centre or legal advice centre consulted by her.

This is urgent. This Tribunal cannot allow this matter to drag on much longer. It is over six months since the notice of appeal was sent in. The grounds have still not been provided. We therefore direct that, if the grounds of appeal are not received in this Tribunal in a proper form by 23 February, the appeal will be struck out without any further hearing. If the grounds are received within that time, then consideration will be given by the Tribunal as to the appropriate procedure for dealing with Miss Scott's appeal.

For those reasons the only order we make today is that grounds of appeal are to be submitted by 23 February. If they are not received by then in a proper form, the appeal will be struck out.