United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MISS G WHITE (of Counsel) Head of Legal Services North Yorkshire County Council County Hall Northallerton N Yorkshire DL7 8AD
For the Respondents	MS TESS GILL (of Counsel) Thompsons Arundel House 1 Furnival Square Sheffield S1 4QL


 


MR JUSTICE CHARLES: The parties to these proceedings are an Adele Kendall and the North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority and a fire fighter Mr Pitt.

An appeal has come before us brought by the North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority against a decision by the Chairman of an Employment Tribunal to refuse a preliminary hearing. The letter refusing that application says this:

"A chairman for the Employment Tribunal refuses your request for a preliminary hearing; he directs that your (sic) are possibly wrong in your contention that all of the Applicant's allegations are out of time. He considers Court v Gloucestershire Royal NHS is applicable."

The appeal, as we have said, was brought against that decision. Before us, as a result of the helpful skeleton arguments put in by both sides, it has been accepted on behalf of the North Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Authority that the application was in time in respect of the last incident referred to therein. The problem as to the date the application was presented arose because the Solicitors acting for the Applicant faxed the documents to the Tribunal and it appears that various parts of the documents got lost in the ether between the Solicitors' Office and the Tribunal. Very properly the North Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Authority having seen documents provided to them, on behalf of the Applicant, accept that the mandatory part of the rules were complied with and therefore there is an application within time.

It follows that criticism of the Chairman's decision based upon the fact that he did not decide whether or not the application was in time is now water under the bridge. That failure it seemed to us, was the best ground, or the best argument available to the Appellants before us.

We have therefore spent some time discussing (discussing is probably the right word) as to what the most appropriate course would now be. As a consequence Ms Gill, on behalf of the Respondent, helpfully volunteered to particularise the Applicant's case further and we have indicated that we will make a direction that she do provide particulars relating to three essential matters.

Firstly, the basis upon which it is alleged that there is a continuing act. Secondly, the basis upon which it is alleged that time should be extended in respect of the earlier allegations made in the IT1 under the just and equitable head and thirdly, the basis upon which it is said that those allegations would, or could, give rise to evidence that would be of assistance in determination of the principal issues.

We were told that a directions hearing had been arranged, but was vacated because of the existence of this appeal and there will be a further directions hearing. We have indicated that we would invite the Chairman, sitting alone, at a further directions hearing to consider whether or not there should be a preliminary hearing in respect of issues identified in writing prior to that hearing by either side, but we understand it is only going to be the employer who will be asking for there to be a preliminary hearing.

Subject to further submission, we would suggest that the particulars be provided in 21 days, and we will direct that any identification of issues to be heard by way of preliminary points should be made within 14 days thereafter.

We do not think it is for us, at this stage, to make any further indications as to how the Chairman should deal with matters arising on that directions hearing.