United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	IN PERSON


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC: This is an appeal by Mr A. Vadehra against a decision by an Employment Tribunal to strike out his application, because he had failed to give particulars as requested by the Respondent Solicitors and as ordered by the Tribunal.

The events which lead to this appeal trouble us. After his application had been made on 14 May 1997 to the Tribunal claiming racial discrimination and victimisation the Respondents, in the usual way, put in a Notice of Appearance, but with it they enclosed a copy of a letter which they had written to Mr Vadehra on 19 June 1997 requesting further and better particulars of the claim and asked the Tribunal to make an order for further and better particulars to be given per their request.

By order dated 24 July 1997 the Tribunal ordered the Applicant to furnish in writing to the Respondents' representative answers to that request on or before 8 August 1997. Anybody reading the request would have seen that it would be inappropriate for the Applicant to have given some of the particulars sought, at any rate before discovery. How it came about that the Tribunal made an outright order, without an oral hearing in those circumstances, escapes us. However, matters did not end there.

The Applicant was ordered to give his further and better particulars in these unsatisfactory circumstances by 8 August 1997. He sent a document to the Tribunal, doing the best that could be expected of a layman, dated 7 August. It was received by the Tribunal on 11 August. Nonetheless, after further correspondence and a hearing before a Chairman sitting alone, the application was struck out. The Decision on 2 December 1997, with Extended Reasons, was sent to the parties on 8 December 1997

Against those extraordinary decisions Mr Vadehra appealed. The ex parte hearing of his appeal was heard by a panel of the Employment Appeal Tribunal chaired by Judge Peter Clark. That Tribunal permitted the matter to proceed to a full hearing on 5 October 1998. We are all of the opinion that the appeal succeeds and the Appellant's complaint be remitted to the Employment Tribunal for hearing as soon as possible. Appropriate directions will doubtless be given.

On 26 November 1998 the Solicitors for the Respondent wrote to this Tribunal in these terms:

"Further to your letter of 10 November 1998, we write to confirm that the Respondents do not wish to resist the appeal lodged by Mr Vadehra. They would, however, ask that the Employment Appeal Tribunal order Mr Vadehra to provide the Further and Better Particulars requested of him on numerous occasions. We enclose a copy of a letter written to the Employment Tribunal on 2 September 1997 which describes the ways in which the Respondents feel Mr Vadehra has failed properly to particularise his complaint."

For reasons which we have already given, it was not appropriate for an order to have been made by the Tribunal on the Respondents' application in the terms sought. We therefore declined to make the order sought by the Respondents.

Mr Vadehra says he is now in a position to give further particulars to the Respondents and to the Employment Tribunal of the particulars sought. We think that would be helpful to the Respondents and the Employment Tribunal if that was done.

Should the Respondents seek further particulars to those which Mr Vadehra has already supplied and those which he tells us he will supply, a further application should be made to the Employment Tribunal.

As Mr Vadehra's application was commenced as long ago as 17 February 1997, we hope that the Employment Tribunal will take such steps as is possible to bring this matter on to a hearing without much more time being lost. We are sorry that this Tribunal took some time to restore this for a full hearing, having regard to the letter of the Respondents' Solicitors dated as long ago as 26 November 1998, in which they stated they did not oppose the appeal.