United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR NIGEL PITCHFORD (Husband) On behalf of the Appellant
For the Respondent	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT


 


MR JUSTICE HOOPER:

1. This is an appeal against directions given by Mr Ash, Chairman of the Tribunal in Bury St Edmunds. On 15 February Mr Pitchford, on behalf of his wife the Applicant in a claim against Mid Suffolk District Council, wrote a letter to the Employment Tribunal in the following terms:

"Following careful reading and consideration of the recent EAT judgment in Mid Suffolk District Council v Mr R Edwards (11 January 2001) the Applicant requests, in the interests of justice (inter alia, Mr Chilton intends to give evidence again), that her cases be presented to a Tribunal membership that was not party to the first instance decision in Edwards."

Mr Ash made the following direction:

"I refuse to disqualify myself or the lay members, The cases are not linked."

That was subsequently clarified in a later document dated 5 March in which it was said that the Chairman's directions should read as follows:

"The Chairman has not decided that the same Tribunal will adjudicate in this case: he has asked that neither he nor the other members are disqualified from hearing the matter, for the reasons given."

2. Mr Pitchford does not have a copy of the Tribunal's decision in the Edwards' case. He brought here today a copy of the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal sending the matter back to another Tribunal for fresh consideration. We do see that at page 5 reference is made by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the Edwards' case to Mr Chilton's patience. What is not clear to us is whether or not there was in that case an issue as to the credibility of Mr Chilton, as opposed to the credibility of the Applicant, Mr Edwards. His credibility was certainly in issue.
3. Furthermore, Witness Statements have not yet been exchanged. It is not therefore known what Mr Chilton is going to say. At this stage, it seems to us all that it is premature to have made the application in the way that Mr Pitchford made it. We all take the view that, faced with the limited amount of information in the letter of 15 February, a reasonable Tribunal would have to reach the conclusion that it did, namely that neither he nor other members of the Edwards' Tribunal are disqualified from hearing the matter.
4. It may be that armed with the original Edwards' decision and after the receipt of the Witness Statements, the Applicant should consider making a further application. We do not encourage any such application but, nonetheless, what we are quite certain about is that this appeal fails on the material available to the Chairman. No other conclusion than the one that he reached was possible.