United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR R THACKER (of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs John Halson Solicitor 10 Pitville Close Liverpool L187JP


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC

1. On 14 July 2000 Miss Ogunleye ("the Appellant"), presented a complaint to the Employment Tribunal complaining of race discrimination and sex discrimination by the Greater Manchester Probation Committee ("the Respondent"). The Notice of Appearance was put in on 3 August. There was a directions hearing on 30 January 2001; unhappily the solicitor acting for the Appellant failed to comply with the directions.
2. On 17 March 2000 he wrote to the Respondent's solicitors saying he had not complied with the Orders and asking for an adjournment. On 21 March the solicitors for the Respondent appeared by letter to agree to the adjournment. On 22 March a Chairman, anonymous, wrote to the Appellant's solicitors, a letter which reads:

"Your request for a postponement has been refused. The Chairman takes the view that if you give this case the proper precedence to which it is entitled you should be able to produce a proper statement for your client within the next few days but in any event is not prepared to postpone a hearing at the request of a party who is not disadvantaged especially as it is only a preliminary hearing."

3. The matter came to a hearing on 30 March, where according to an affidavit sworn by the Appellant's solicitor on 26/11/01, the Chairman seems to have initiated a suggestion that the Respondent's solicitors seek an Order that there should be a strike-out of the claims because of the failure to comply with the directions which the panel thought was scandalous.
4. Extended Reasons for that were given by the Tribunal on 22 June 2001. This is the hearing of the ex parte application against that decision. The Notice of Appeal is dated 22 May 2001. Having heard from Mr Thacker, and having read the Appellant's solicitor's affidavit, we are satisfied that the matters raised in the Notice of Appeal should go through to a full hearing. We think that the full Tribunal might value the comments of the Chairman on the affidavit of the Appellant's solicitor. Subject to that being requested, we think that there should be standard directions.
5. We should also note that we do not think that in the circumstances of the case, it appears that the parties appearing at the hearing had any opportunity to consider the authorities which are mentioned by Mr Thacker in his Skeleton Argument, in particular the cases of Arrow Nominees -v- Blackledge [2000] BC LC 167 and Logicross -v-Southend United Football Club The Times 5 March 1998.

As the complaint of the Appellant has not yet been heard because it is a preliminary hearing, we think it would be helpful if this appeal were to be heard as expeditiously as the lists permit.