United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MRS O C MADUAKO Newham Council for Racial Equality 478 Barking Road London E13 8QB


 


JUDGE H WILSON: This preliminary hearing of a proposed appeal arises out of a decision by the Employment Tribunal sitting at London (North) to decline to grant the Applicant's application for the Tribunal's decision on 17 July 1998 to be reviewed. The Respondents were awarded costs in respect of that hearing.

Put briefly, what had happened was that notice of the hearing on 17 July had been posted to the parties and in the case of the Applicant, to his representatives at the last address they had given to the Tribunal office. The Applicant's representative was the Newham Council for Racial Equality and the address to which the notification was sent, was the last address, as I have said, given by the Council to the Tribunal office. In fact the Council had moved premises on a date late in May, but had given no notification to the Tribunal.

On 14 July, the Respondents had faxed a copy of a letter to the Applicant's representative and followed it up with a further letter. The fax was received, so too was the letter and both those communications referred to the hearing date of 17 July. There was some difficulty about the faxed communication, but the letter of 14 July, received on 16 July, was filed without being read.

The Tribunal in refusing a review held that, if the Applicant's representative had read either of the communications, she would have realised that there was a hearing date, although she had not received the communication directly from the Tribunal. She would have had an opportunity to make contact with both the Tribunal and the Respondents before the 17 July. Failure to do so had lead to the Respondents' attendance and the matter being dismissed for want of prosecution.

Having read the arguments which have been put forward and expanded upon today by Mrs Maduako in support of the Applicant's case, we consider that the matter should go to a full hearing on two specific points.

We express the first point as the question whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in refusing to review its decision when the default which had happened on 17 July and which had led to the dismissal of the Applicant's application for want of prosecution, had been entirely that of the Applicant's representatives, the Applicant himself being blameless. Secondly, the question whether in the circumstances of the case, it was just and equitable for the Tribunal to refuse a review.

We think that the matter should be in category C and that the time estimate should be an hour.