Title: Appeal No.
Author: TEST USER
Last saved by: vmartzou
Company: BAILLI

Appeal No.	 EAT/368/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 19 November 1997

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D PUGSLEY
MR K M HACK JP
MR D J JENKINS MBE

DR K THAKKER	APPELLANT

NOTTINGHAM CITY HOSPITAL NHS TRUST	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant | NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

	JUDGE PUGSLEY:     Dr Thakker, the appellant in this case, has not appeared. Enquiries have been made. She says she is unwell and is in a degree of perturbation. She was asked if she was prepared to put in any document to apply for an adjournment. She said that she was not able to do that, but she would write in the future. 

	We have come to the view that it would be quite wrong to allow this case to be adjourned. It is already exercised the attention of a number of tribunals. We have decided to deal with the case on its merits.

	The position may be described thus. Dr Thakker is a radiologist. She was engaged in a position by the respondent hospital trust. At a decision of the Nottingham Industrial Tribunal on 21st August 1996, the tribunal found that her complaints of racial discrimination was presented in time; that her claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed as frivolous in the sense that it had no prospect of success, the appellant having not completed two years service; and they refused her application to claim wrongful dismissal.

	Thereafter, by a decision promulgated on 8th October 1996, the appellant’s case for race discrimination was struck out, because she had failed to provide the full particulars of the claim that had been required on the hearing on 21st August. On that earlier occasion, an order had been made asking her to supply the matters on or before 7th September 1996.

	Dr Thakker then sought a review. By a decision of a tribunal which took place on 9th December 1996, and was promulgated on 12th December, a tribunal under the chairmanship of Mr Threfell, carefully set out the reasons the tribunal gave for refusing to change the decision of the tribunal to wit, that the application be struck be out for want of prosecution to comply with the particulars ordered.

	In paragraph 2 of the decision, the tribunal point out that:

“2.	The applicant was present at the hearing on 21 August, when the applicant’s application for unfair dismissal was dismissed and her application to amend to bring a claim of wrongful dismissal was refused. At that hearing the Tribunal also ordered that, as the applicant’s claim of race discrimination was not clear, she should supply further particulars of her claim of race discrimination, ... on or before 7 September 1996. The applicant sent a letter to the Tribunal, which was received on 2 September by hand in which she queried the breach of contract question, but did not provide any particulars as ordered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal replied by letter of 10 September, sent both to the applicant at her address at the City Hospital with a copy to the solicitors who had represented her at the hearing, suggesting that she should take up the query she had raised with her solicitors. The Tribunal then wrote further to the applicant’s solicitors on 13 September, pointing out that the further particulars had not been supplied and if they were not supplied within a further 7 days, the application would be struck out. The solicitors who had represented the applicant at the hearing on 21 August, wrote by letter of 20 September, saying that they had made several attempts to contact the applicant in respect of the further particulars to her claim, but had been unable to obtain instructions and therefore considered that they were no longer instructed. As a result, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 24 September, pointing out that she should show cause why her originating application should not be struck out for failing to comply within the order to supply further particulars and should reply within 7 days. No reply was received and an order was made on 8 October striking out the application for failure to comply with the order. This was a month after the original time limit.”

In paragraph 3 of the decision promulgated on 12th December 1996, the tribunal fully set out the circumstances that Dr Thakker gave them as to why they should have exercised their discretion and reviewed the decision. The tribunal considered the matter, taking into account that the original application to the tribunal was inadequate in setting out the allegation of discrimination alleged, and endorsing the propriety that an order should be made requiring Dr Thakker to specify those allegations. The appellant was at the hearing when the order was made and was represented. The tribunal came to the view that there was no doubt that she knew what was required. She did not respond, although she was in a position to do so at least until 4th September. She was away from Nottingham from that date until 18th September, but despite further correspondence being sent to her and her solicitors, she made no response to the order. The tribunal came to the view that as a striking out order was not made until some seven months after the complaint had arisen, and that she had adequate opportunity to provide proper information about her claim so that it could proceed. The tribunal came to the conclusion that the order striking out the application for failure to comply with the order was properly made and should stand.

	It is right to say that we have a plethora of matters raised by Dr Thakker which are perhaps more revealing of the mental anguish in which she suffers, than they are, if we may so, matters likely to assist us as to seeing any arguable ground of law that could go to a full hearing. It is unnecessary to go into the body of the matters. She repeats many matters, some of which are really, if one may say so, not at all relevant to this issue. 

	We have come to the view the matter should be heard today. No arguable ground of law is raised by her application. These are matters well within the discretion of the Industrial Tribunal. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Copyright 1998

EAT/368/97

EAT/368/97
-  -