At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J R REID QC
MS N AMIN
MR A E R MANNERS
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
For the Appellant | MR CHRISTOPHER MITROPOULOS (of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Kang & Co Solicitors 13a Station Parade Barking Essex IG1 18BD |
For the Respondent | MR DAVID ISAAC (Representative) Instructed by: Stratford Labour Hire Ltd 53-55 The Broadway Stratford London E15 4BN |
JUDGE J R REID QC
(1) Mr Baker should serve a schedule of claim together with evidence of his new employment on the Respondent by 5 January 2001.
(2) The Respondents should serve a counter-schedule of what sums they accept to be due to Mr Baker by 19 January 2001.
(3) Witness statements relating to quantum of loss be exchanged by the parties by 2 February 2001.
1 "The Applicant attended and was represented by Counsel on the remedies hearing, following the decision this Tribunal made on 15 December 2000. The Respondents were represented by Mr Isaac[he, I should say, is a Director of the Respondent Company] and had a further witness present. Unfortunately the Applicant had not complied properly or in time with the directions given in paragraph 6 of the previous Decision and in particular no witness statement had been provided to the Respondents of the evidence that the Applicant wished to give. In these circumstances Mr Isaac asked that the case proceed on the basis that we did not hear the Applicant, whereas Mr Mitropoulos, who appeared for the Applicant, asked that we proceed and heard the Applicant's evidence in oral form or in the alternative adjourned the hearing to a later date. Documents were provided by the Applicant which the Respondents had not seen before and there were incomplete papers for the Tribunal members. In short the situation was not satisfactory and, although whatever the decision this Tribunal made it could be perceived as unfair to one party or the other, the least unfairness to the parties the Tribunal considered was to adjourn the case to be heard on another date when directions hopefully had been complied with. The directions given today are that:
1) The Applicant should serve an amended schedule of loss within seven days [as I understand it the schedule of loss introduced at the hearing];
2) The Applicant should serve a witness statement within seven days;
3) The Applicant should supply copies of any relevant documents within fourteen days;
4) the Applicant is put on notice that if he fails to comply with any of these directions he risks having his claim struck out;
5) The remedies hearing shall now take place on 4 April 2001 at 10am (estimated time half a day).
"I cannot see that Jamie's rate of pay will increase beyond £5.00 per hour within the next eighteen months."
"I confirm that Jamie is earning £11,000 per year - £5.29 per hour. He has been on this rate since Jan 01."
9 "Ms Woodruff says that the Tribunal should not concern itself at this stage with the content of documents, such going to proving or not that part of the Applicant's case. Ms Woodruff also states that it would be unfair to strike out the Applicant's claim bearing in mind the delays are short and the Respondents have not been prejudiced thereby.
10 We have come to the conclusion that, where the Applicant has failed to comply with the directions given on 15 December 2000 by 28 February 2001 and then further failed to comply with directions given on 28 February 2001 within time, he has put himself in a dangerous situation. The Applicant was informed clearly at the last hearing that he risked having his claim struck out. Furthermore, the relevant document on which the Applicant relies is undated and unsigned and inconsistent with his amended schedule of loss which, if the fax produced by Mr Isaac is correct, does not show the correct rise of earnings in January 2001.
11 Ms Woodruff did not challenge the information in the fax and therefore an amended schedule of loss which the Applicant knows to be wrong has been presented to this Tribunal. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in striking out that part of the Applicant's Originating Application relating to remedies for unfair dismissal. We believe that he and/or his lawyers have treated the Respondents and this Tribunal in a manner which is or borders on being contemptuous. These proceedings have been conducted on the Applicant's behalf in a manner which is covered by the Rule in question.
They therefore struck out the application so far as it related to remedies.
"This ground for striking out, i.e. Rule 13(2)(e) was introduced by the 1993 Rules. Its purpose is to provide a means for dealing with litigants who conducted their cases in a disruptive and unruly manner, or refuse to obey the directions or the Chairman, but whose cases could not be struck out on any of the other two grounds [i.e. want of prosecution (f) or pleading scandalous, frivolous or vexatious (d)]"