United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR BASU (of Counsel) ELAAS


 


MR JUSTICE BELL: This is a preliminary ex parte hearing in respect of an appeal by Dr Dalgarno. The matter started with an appeal by Dr Dalgarno against the decision of an Industrial Tribunal, held at Reading in January 1994, and deciding on 1st February 1994, that Dr Dalgarno had been unfairly dismissed, but that he had contributed to his dismissal to the level of 80%. He appealed against that decision.

On 14th November 1994, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, presided over by the then President, Mummery J., gave a reasoned judgment dismissing his appeal at an ex parte preliminary hearing. It dismissed the appeal on the basis that it could find no arguable questions of law in Dr Dalgarno's submission presented by himself, or his grounds of appeal.

On 11th October 1995, the Employment Appeal Tribunal refused Dr Dalgarno's application for a review of its 14th November 1994 order. It could still not find anything legally incorrect in the conclusion of the Industrial Tribunal on the question of contributory fault, so the interests of justice, the tribunal concluded, did not require a review.

Not satisfied with that, Dr Dalgarno applied to the Industrial Tribunal at Reading again: this time for a review of its original decision of 1st February 1994. His application was heard on 26th January 1996. It refused by a written decision promulgated on 8th March 1996.

Dr Dalgarno now appeals against that refusal of his application for a review.

Mr Basu has represented Dr Dalgarno today before us. He has raised three matters. The first is that it is Dr Dalgarno's contention that on the penultimate day of the original Industrial Tribunal hearing he overheard the representative of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority speaking to the Chairman of the tribunal about raising further matters the following morning, and that he heard a reply from the Chairman to the effect that it was important that all relevant evidence was heard. The following morning there was a hearing in chambers which lasted some time. Dr Dalgarno was not present at that hearing, but Counsel acting for him was. Dr Dalgarno fears that evidence was actually heard at that hearing in chambers, in his absence, unknown to him. If that was so, it might well provide the basis for a successful contention that there had been a material irregularity in the proceedings. However, there is absolutely no evidence from which we can infer that evidence was actually called relating to the issues which the Industrial Tribunal had to try. In any event, Dr Dalgarno's Counsel was present there and, as everyone knows, Counsel stands as representative of his client at all time, so long as his instructions are in place. This matter was brought before Mr Thomas, the Chairman at the review hearing on 26th January 1996, and we can see nothing wrong with Mr Thomas' rejection of that point.

The second point which Mr Basu puts forward is Dr Dalgarno's contention that perjured evidence was given at the original Industrial Tribunal hearing. That is really another way of expressing Dr Dalgarno's repeated complaint that he was unjustly treated by the original tribunal's decision. That has been the subject of a previous appeal, as we have said. In our view, Dr Dalgarno's application for review at Reading of the original tribunal's hearing, was really just a way of trying to get back before a forum all the matters which he had raised so often but unsuccessfully in the past. We see not merit in that point.

The final matter is this. Dr Dalgarno says that when he appeared before Mr Thomas at the application for a review on 26th January 1996, he, Dr Dalgarno, said something to the effect that he wanted the truth to come out at the review hearing. Whereupon, he says, the Chairman, Mr Thomas replied:

"The Industrial Tribunal is not empowered to come to a truthful conclusion."

which to Dr Dalgarno, demonstrated that justice would not be done, and would not have been done at the original January 1994 hearing. In fact the Chairman's account of what he said is that the tribunal was not empowered to come to a truthful conclusion, that is on the application for a review, as to events which had already been the subject of evidence and findings of fact in another hearing. Whether or not what the Chairman meant to say was as felicitously expressed as it might have been, we are sure in our own minds that whatever words were used, the Chairman was merely saying that which was obvious, namely that he could not sensibly re-hear Dr Dalgarno's original application, which was what, in effect, he was being asked to do. That was especially so when there had been an unsuccessful appeal against the decision made by the original Industrial Tribunal, and an unsuccessful application for the Employment Appeal Tribunal to review the matter.

Having considered all the matters in the papers before us, including Dr Dalgarno's extensive written material, and everything which Mr Basu has said to us today, very attractively, if we may say so, we see no merit and certainly no arguable point or points of law raised in this appeal. It follows that it must be dismissed at this preliminary stage.