United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


JUDGE J ALTMAN:

1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Employment Tribunal held at Liverpool on 2 and 9 June 2000. The grounds of appeal are as follows.

(a) Breach of a directory requirement by the President of the Employment Tribunal in allowing the Chairman to consider and adjudge the Appellant's claim for a second time and there being a suspicion of bias;

(b) a failure to consider and adjudge on the real issues despite the evidence and

(c) breach of various articles of the Human Rights Act 1968.

2. The Appellant has not appeared today and we have proceeded in her absence. The matter comes before us by way of preliminary hearing to consider whether there is an arguable point of law such as to enable the appeal to be argued in full before the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
3. The Employment Tribunal struck out the application and in the Extended Reasons the history of the matter was set out.
4. The Employment Tribunal described how the Appellant had sought to be a student at the College of Law and how she took exception to a most offensive phrase used during the course of a lecture, albeit it is a phrase which can be used inadvertently by those who fail to adjust over the years to the changing attitudes to language and the realisation nowadays of the offensiveness of terms that have been used in the past. But, nonetheless, it was clearly on the face of it a matter which seems to have occurred at a point in time after which the Appellant was unable to pursue her studies satisfactorily. So eventually she sought assessment as a means of achieving qualification or any form of pass being granted without the need to sit examinations.
5. The Appellant sought a number of applications in the Courts to progress her claim and the matter came before the Employment Tribunal in due course. In June 1999 there were three claims outstanding and a Chairman gave directions about them.
6. The matter then continued through the various Courts and in February 2000 she complained of disability discrimination. The matter was dealt with at considerable length and the many cases and hearings initiated by the Appellant are fully set out in the decision of Mr Homfray-Davies. We can see no point of law arising from the fact that he presided over more than one adjudication. Time and again Chairmen deal with a succession of events.
7. There is no reason to suppose that Chairmen harbour bias of any kind, and the decision in this case leads us to the view that the conclusions of the Chairman followed not from any bias on his part, but from a very careful meticulous analysis of the history of what has taken place. The striking-out of the claim as being frivolous or vexatious is one that was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and there is no argument, it seems to us, there was no material upon which such an order could be made.
8. We have come to the conclusion that there is no error of law arguable in this matter and that the appeal must be dismissed.