United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


MR JUSTICE DOUGLAS BROWN

1. This is a preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mr Martyn Hammond from a decision of the Employment Tribunal at Newcastle-upon-Tyne (the Chairman, Mr P Hildebrand). The extended reasons were sent to the parties on 26 April 2000.
2. The appeal is unusual in that Mr Hammond was one of a number of Respondents who successfully resisted a number of claims brought by a Mrs Affleck and a Mr Close. His complaint is that he should have been dismissed as a Respondent at the outset of what turned out to be a 14-day hearing. Similar submissions were made by another Respondent, Mr Blake, through his Counsel.
3. The proceedings arose from serious problems that occurred in the management and affairs of Newcastle Mind, an unincorporated charity affiliated to the well-known charity for mental health, Mind.
4. Mrs Affleck, in 1995, brought a claim for sexual discrimination and then a separate claim for unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction of wages, breach of contract and victimisation. Mr Close brought proceedings of his own for sexual discrimination and Mr Close conducted the applications on behalf of himself and Mrs Affleck.
5. After a long interlocutory history, the application was heard, as we have said, over 14 days between September 1999 and January 2000. In the result all the applications were dismissed. Mr Hammond and Mr Blake were dismissed as Respondents from Mrs Affleck's second claim. Mrs Affleck and Mr Close appealed to this Appeal Tribunal and their appeal was dismissed at the preliminary hearing on 30 May 2001.
6. One of the main reasons for the long delay between the applications being made and the hearing was that there was uncertainty as to who should be the Respondents.
7. In March 1999 Mr Justice Morrison, the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, gave a judgment, the effect of which, certainly this is how the Employment Tribunal regarded it, was that the Respondents should be those who were members of the management committee of Newcastle Mind, at the time of the alleged dismissal or when the dispute arose.
8. At the outset of the hearing Mr Blake's Counsel submitted in these terms:

"As far as Newcastle Mind were concerned, the correct Respondents were the members of the management committee at the date of the issue of proceedings, since the effect of the decision is to identify the individuals holding the assets at the date the claim was presented to the Tribunal."

Mr Counsellor contended that Mr Blake should have been dismissed from the proceedings before the hearing began and Mr Hammond took similar points.

9. The decision of the Tribunal was that it would be inappropriate, in the light of the remark quoted from the President, regarding the mixed issues of fact and law, to dismiss the Respondents from the proceedings without having heard the underlying facts against which such issues had to be decided. And accordingly the Tribunal declined to dismiss any Respondents from the proceedings before the hearing had begun.
10. The Tribunal gave its ultimate decision after hearing all the evidence and submissions on 30 July. They said this:

7.3 "Messrs Blake and Hammond were both committee members at the time the cause of action arose. Mr Blake resigned at some date in early April 1995 but there was no evidence that he resigned prior to the 4 April. Mr Hammond resigned on 18 April 1995. Messrs Blake and Hammond should remain parties to that claim (to Mrs Affleck's first claim). In relation to Mrs Affleck's unfair dismissal and victimisation claim the cause of action arose over a period of time prior to September 1995 and the claim was presented on 11 September 1995. Accordingly Messrs Blake and Hammond had both resigned some five months prior to that date. They should be dismissed from those proceedings being Mrs Affleck's second claim."

11. The thrust of Mr Hammond's appeal and his argument, (put through correspondence because he has not attended on the appeal) is that he came to regard the committee as acting unconstitutionally and he resigned. It was unreasonable, therefore, to continue to hold him responsible as a Respondent. He did not mind being a witness but he should not have been a Respondent.
12. Essentially he is saying that the Employment Tribunal came to a wrong conclusion, both as to law and fact. The facts and relevant dates are not really in dispute. Mr Hammond does not begin to set out in his grounds or written argument how the Employment Tribunal made errors of law of how they went wrong on fact. They were following interlocutory guidance given by the President of this Appeal Tribunal and we regret to say that the grounds that he put forward in his many, well-argued letters are not against the test that this Tribunal has to apply; arguable grounds of error of law, and his appeal is dismissed at this stage.