At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SMITH
MR W MORRIS
MR J R CROSBY
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
For the Appellant | IN PERSON |
MRS JUSTICE SMITH: Mr Harvey seeks to appeal a decision of a Chairman of Industrial Tribunals, sitting in London on 19 March 1998, whereby he refused the Appellant's application for leave to amend the Originating Application. The matter arose out of the dismissal of the Appellant in December 1996, with effect from 31 December 1996. He issued an Originating Application in February 1997 claiming that he had been unfairly dismissed and unfairly selected for redundancy.
The Notice of Appearance was dated 7 March 1997 but was not delivered to the Appellant until 16 April 1997. That Notice admitted the dismissal and relied upon a history of back disorder and corrective surgery, which prevented the Appellant from undertaking the full duties of a working chargehand. It appeared that that may have been the real reason why the Appellant had been selected for dismissal. By that date the Appellant's time for making a complaint under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 had already expired. He was not well at this time and he did not lodge a claim under that Act until September 1997.
When the application came on to amend his application in March 1998, that delay not having been due to any fault on his part, it was refused, and it is against that decision that the Appellant seeks to appeal.
We have examined the decision and we do consider that it gives rise to an arguable point of law. In the first place we consider it arguable that the Chairman took into account, against the Appellant's interest, that the Appellant could rely upon the fact that his disability had been a factor in his dismissal, in support of his unfair dismissal claim. That, as it seems to us, was arguably irrelevant. It is also arguable in our view that the Chairman should have taken account, in the Appellant's favour, that the evidence about the reason for the dismissal would be covered at the hearing in any event and that the Respondents would therefore, not be prejudiced by allowing the amendment.
Today, the Appellant has appeared in person and has shown to us two additional grounds of appeal. We consider that those two grounds are also arguable. Accordingly, this case will proceed. We shall allow an estimated length of hearing of two hours and mark the case Category C.
The amended Notice of Appeal is to be filed within 28 days. We allow a longer than usual period of time because the Appellant hopes to reinstate his Legal Aid certificate.