United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

FOR THE APPELLANTS: Mr A Anyanwu Mr O Ebuzoeme	IN PERSON MR DAVIS (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law in the decision given by an Industrial Tribunal on 21 March 1997. The Chairman, who was sitting alone, concluded that the second and fourth Respondents should be dismissed from the proceedings because of the doctrine of res judicata. The second Respondent was named as the South Bank University, the fourth Respondent as Professor Watkins, who was the Deputy Vice Chancellor of the University.

It seems to us to be arguable firstly, that the doctrine of res judicata does not operate so as to preclude a complaint in relation to the dismissal of the Applicants by the first Respondent and secondly, to be arguable that the refusal of leave to move for judicial review does not constitute a determination for the purposes of that doctrine.

Accordingly, it seems to us that the second and fourth Respondents should have the opportunity of arguing at a full hearing both those two points of law.

In relation to the third Respondent, Professor Bernbaum, he is the Vice Chancellor of the University. The Industrial Tribunal dismissed him from the proceedings on the basis that he had no interest in them. The basis of the decision of the Industrial Tribunal in reaching that conclusion was that, effectively, he was acting as a messenger in relation to two letters which were identified in paragraph 14 of the Decision.

Mr Davis, who is participating on behalf of the ELAAS scheme, and to whom we are extremely grateful for his assistance, and for the help which ELAAS gives to us generally, submits that the Industrial Tribunal have erred in narrowing the nature of the allegations against the Vice Chancellor to the two letters. He says that it obviously arguable that the real nature of the allegations against the Vice Chancellor extended well beyond the writing of those two letters. He is directly implicated in the Originating Applications in relation to various of the allegations which are summarised by the Industrial Tribunal in paragraph 2 of their Decision. It seems to us that that point is arguable as a matter of law.

Furthermore, it seems to us sensible that if there is to be a full hearing of this appeal that questions relating to each of the three Respondents who were struck out from these proceedings, should be dealt with at the same time. I would like to make it plain that by giving leave, as the parties will know, it does not imply one way or the other as to how any appeal will be determined. But I would add that, if the appeal in relation to South Bank University were to succeed, in other words, if the Appellants were to persuade us that the South Bank University should remain as a party to the proceedings, then a further question will arise for consideration as to whether there is any material benefit to the parties to maintain the third and fourth Respondents as named parties to the proceedings and that will depend, in part, upon the attitude of the University as to whether they would wish to accept responsibility in law for the acts of those two named parties in relation to the matters alleged in the complaints.

If the South Bank University were to remain as a party and were to acknowledge responsibility for alleged actions, then a question will need to be considered as to the justice of keeping them as named parties to the complaint. But, as I say, that may not arise because the court may dismiss the appeal.

Note:

To Damhnait Rumney (Court Associate):

from

Mr Justice Morison.

I now give directions in relation to this.

I think that this is an all day case. I would have thought one day would be sufficient.

I would like to retain it for myself and it should be heard relatively soon, as this is effectively an interlocutory decision and there has yet to be a full hearing of the complaint, which should be heard as soon as possible by the Industrial Tribunal