United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON
For the Respondents	MR MATTHEW RYDER (of Counsel) The Solicitor London Borough of Hounslow Civic Centre Lampton Road Hounslow Middlesex TW3 4DN


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): Mrs Imam had asked us to adjourn this appeal against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at London (North) in September 1996. By that decision the Industrial Tribunal dismissed her complaint of unfair dismissal.

On 21st March 1997 a division of the Employment Appeal Tribunal ordered that the appeal be allowed to proceed to a full hearing of the Employment Appeal Tribunal solely on the question that the Industrial Tribunal failed to determine a matter of which it was seised, namely the racial discrimination point. At that preliminary hearing, under the ELAAS scheme, Mrs Imam had the benefit of being represented by Mr Andrew Clarke QC.

The respondents, that is the London Borough of Houslow who were Mrs Imam's former employers, were required to file a respondent's notice indicating the grounds on which they resisted the appeal.

Effectively what they say is that when one looks at documentation, it is plain that there had been a discussion with the Industrial Tribunal as to whether there was an existing complaint of discrimination, and the tribunal informed Mrs Imam on 21st August 1996 that she did not have leave to amend her originating application to include a claim for racial discrimination.

Accordingly, the Council contend that the basis on which the Employment Appeal Tribunal gave leave for this case to proceed to a full hearing is confounded by information which may not have been available to the Court on that occasion.

Mrs Imam has been seeking legal assistance. The way that she has sought this has varied from writing to the Council, the respondents to the appeal; writing to the Employment Appeal Tribunal; and perhaps communicating with the Commission for Racial Equality. More recently, she tells us, that she has been in touch with Messrs Pattinson & Brewer, and with Messrs. Davies & Co, who are a Surrey based firm of solicitors. She says that at present she has no legal representation and feels that representation is necessary for her to conduct the appeal. She explains that she is not currently employed; that she is not, as she understands it, entitled to Legal Aid; and although it does not look likely that she is going to be able to obtain legal representation, she wishes to continue her efforts in that regard. What she says is that she does not feel able to present her appeal today, unrepresented as she is, and asks us to adjourn the matter. She says that this is the holiday season for solicitors, and that the case should be adjourned until September. This Court does sit in September in one division, but our work is more fully dealt with from October.

On behalf of the respondents, Mr Ryder says that the appeal is hopeless, therefore, what is the point of adjourning it. But it is a matter for the Employment Appeal Tribunal to consider, and he recognises, quite properly, the fact that when a party is unrepresented and wishes to have time to obtain representation, it is unattractive for the Court to insist that an appeal goes ahead with an unrepresented appellant. On the other hand, there is a limit to the extent to which this Court should be prepared to allow an appeal to remain outstanding whilst one of the parties seeks, apparently at a very late stage, to obtain legal representation.

During the course of discussion, I gave, what Counsel for the respondent Authority described as a strong costs warning to Mrs Imam. It seems to us that there is probably no merit whatever in her appeal; that she should understand that if the Employment Appeal Tribunal were to agree with that view on the next occasion, she will be very likely ordered to pay the costs which have been incurred in dealing with this appeal.

With that indication, it seems to me, that justice can be done by adjourning the case at this stage to give Mrs Imam a last chance, I repeat, a last chance, to seek to obtain legal representation. I will direct that this appeal be listed for hearing in the first working week of October 1997, and I should tell Mrs Imam, that if she is not represented at that stage, there will be no question of any further adjournment to enable her to obtain such representation. The appeal will go ahead on that occasion and she will have to participate in an unrepresented capacity if she has not been able to obtain legal representation. I wish her to bear in mind the strong costs warning which I have given her in this case.

I direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to the parties and be lodged on the file.