United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MISS J HEAL (Of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC

1. This is a Preliminary Hearing from the Reading Employment Tribunal, Extended Reasons which were given on 30 November 2000. We propose to give leave because it seems to us there are at least four arguable points that have been identified.
2. The first is that there does not appear to be in the Extended Reasons any adjudication as to how much Mr Bailey should pay, by way of costs and we are told by Miss Heal who appears under the ELAAS Scheme and to whom we are grateful that there is nothing in the summary reasons either.
3. Secondly, we think it arguable that the power of an Employment Tribunal to award costs is a power in respect of a party only. There is no suggestion as we understand it that Mr Bailey was at fault in the conduct of his own case. The order was made against him as representative and we think that it is arguable that that was not a proper exercise of power.
4. Thirdly, we think it is arguable that a failure by a representative to obtain authorities from his client is incapable of amounting to an abuse of process.
5. Fourthly, we think it arguable that the decision of the Tribunal does not sufficiently identify precisely what it is said Mr Bailey did wrong in respect of what case and when. We bear in mind that the award of costs is one which appears to be made globally and not in respect of any individual case.
6. The bundle for consideration by the full Tribunal should contain a copy of the summary reasons. There should be a revised notice of appeal concentrating upon the four points that we have identified. Skeleton arguments to be provided at least fourteen days prior to the hearing together with any legal authority to be relied upon. A chronology should be compiled and provided at the same time.