United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	The Appellant In Person


 


JUDGE D PUGSLEY

1. This is a case where, although we all have some years experience sitting in this Tribunal, the pervading mood is one of sadness. It is quite clear that Mr Nobbs feels bitterly hurt by the decision of the original Employment Tribunal promulgated in May 1998. The hurt he feels cannot be the subject of any balm by this Tribunal merely because we feel it is sad that he has allowed the matter to get on top of him.
2. From that original decision, there was, almost inevitably, given Mr Nobbs's state of mind, an Appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and that was heard on 2 December 1998. In a comprehensive judgment his Honour Judge Peter Clark sitting with 2 experienced members reviewed all the evidence saying that the Tribunal found in a nutshell that the reason for the dismissal was the Appellant's persistent failure to obey the reasonable order of Mr Roe. Mr Nobbs was not prepared to accept Mr Roe's authority despite repeated warnings. In these circumstances, there having been no justification for the Appellants direct confrontational attitude towards Mr Roe, the Tribunal concluded the dismissal was fair. The judgement is at page 32 of the bundle. It deals with Mr Nobbs' Application for a review and it concludes with this judgment:

"The short answer to this appeal discloses no arguable point of law to go forward to the full hearing and accordingly it must be dismissed at this stage."

3. Thereafter, there was a further Application for a review and that was dismissed on 4 November 1999 and again that matter was considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. That came to a hearing when His Honour Judge Peter Clark dismissed the Appellant's appeal appeared against the Registrars decision that the appeal was out of time. There was a further application for review which was supported by an Affidavit and that came before the Tribunal on 11 May 2000 and it is against the refusal to review the decision that we now hear this Appeal. That decision sets out the history of the attempts by Mr Nobbs to revise the original decision.
4. It is pertinent to note that in paragraph 15(f) of the Affidavit as part of the allegation of bias it is said:-

"A bias for women, which allowed Mrs Harrold to influence a decision, she had no right to be part of, as recognised by the EAT."

5. When asked Mr Nobbs, where in the decision the Employment Appeal Tribunal there was any recognition that bias we were told it was during an oral intervention by His Honour Judge Peter Clark. We are sorry. We see no basis in law at all for allowing this matter to go forward.
6. Nothing has been raised which we think can possibly at this stage show there was an error in law. It is not our part to act as unpaid, and possibly unskilled, Counsellors but really we do not think we will be doing any service at all to Mr Nobbs by encouraging him in the false hope that he can go on and on and on. The Tribunal refusing the review sets out the reasons for the refusal in a decision promulgated on 17 May 2000.
7. There is as His Honour Judge Clark said: "A value in finality in litigation". We agree how Mr Nobbs lives his life is entirely a matter for him. We think it is going far more productive if he looks to the future instead of seeking to re-litigate the past. The Employment Tribunal is the fact finding body and we cannot see any ground for allowing this case to go to a full hearing. We therefore dismiss the appeal.