United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


LORD JOHNSTON: This is a preliminary hearing held in the absence of the appellant, of the appeal at the instigation of Ms Lakareber who complains about the way she was treated by the University of Portsmouth, on a number of grounds which were contained in an Originating Application to the Industrial Tribunal, now the Employment Tribunal.

It is not necessary for this appeal to go in any detail into the precise complaints that the appellant makes about how she was treated by the University. Suffice it to say, it is related to her academic progress or lack of it, and her concerns and indeed claims that she had been discriminated against on grounds of race.

The problem in the present case arises from the fact that the Originating Application was made to the London (North) Industrial Tribunal who having determined the matter as regards location of the hearings in relation to the application ordered that the case be heard in Southampton. Being concerned as to how this came about when the matter came before this tribunal in the summer, Judge Peter Clark remitted the matter to the Chairman of the London (North) Region in order to ascertain what had happened. Her letter to this tribunal is dated 2nd July 1998 and is on file. In that she explains how it is that from time to time applications can be transferred from the original venue to one which is thought to be more appropriate in the particular case. The point is made that a party cannot normally choose which office deals with a case, although she does say that it is normal to consult the parties if a switch is going to be made. In the particular case the Chairman states quite clearly that the letter which intimated the decision was inappropriate because it states that the parties had agreed and that is not accurate.

This appears to be the substance of the various complaints put forward by the appellant in her grounds of this appeal, which under various heads relating to natural justice and the like, submits that she is entitled and indeed is bound, if that is what she wants, to have her case heard here in London where she lives, as opposed to the Southampton Region where the University in question is located.

We sympathise with the appellant's concerns and indeed anger that she did not appear to have been consulted before the switch was made. However, it is perfectly apparent to us that the tribunal is a master of its own affairs, and is entitled therefore to conclude within a discretion where a particular case should be heard. In the present case, the employer or rather the respondent, the appellant being a student, is located within the Southampton Region, and is therefore entirely appropriate that the case be heard there.

In these circumstances, we do not consider that this case raises any point of law which would entitle us to interfere with a discretion which must exist within the administration of the tribunal system to manage its own affairs, though we repeat that it was unfortunate that the consultation process appears to have failed. There is nothing, however, to suggest that the tribunal at London (North) was obliged to accept or indeed act upon the requests of the appellant. It is perhaps significant that in her letter in the last paragraph, the Regional Chairman states that she had received no letter from the appellant's representative asking about the reason for the transfer or protesting about it.

In these circumstances, we consider that this particular appeal raises no question of law. This appeal will be therefore refused and the case remitted back to the Employment Tribunal at Southampton to proceed as accords.