At the Tribunal | |
Before
MR COMMISSIONER HOWELL QC
MR P R A JACQUES CBE
MR T C THOMAS CBE
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
APPLICATION FOR COSTS
For the Appellant | NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT |
For the Respondent | MR GERARD CLARKE (Of Counsel) Instructed by: Ms J Youngson British Broadcasting Corporation Litigation Department BBC White City 201 Wood Lane London W12 7TS |
MR COMMISSIONER HOWELL QC
"The Applicant sought to renew an application for a preliminary hearing in the cases which he had made before another Chairman at a hearing on 11th April 2001. The Chairman declined to hear that renewed application for a preliminary hearing for two reasons. It did not seem to the Chairman that there is any such issue of jurisdiction as would enable the Tribunal to shorten the eventual hearing in the case. More importantly, he didn't consider that he had jurisdiction to allow Mr Hawwari to re-litigate an application which Mr Hawwari said he had made to the other Chairman."
The Chairman thus declined to entertain what was in effect a renewal of an application for a preliminary hearing which had already been made to, and fully dealt with by, another Chairman.
"Mr Hawwari is an experienced litigant and, as he has told the Tribunal in this case at the Directions Hearing, he has taken courses on employment law. In his previous cases he has been supported by the CRE and the NUJ. He is a member of the National Union of Journalists' Executive Committee and, as a member of the NUJ, would no doubt be entitled to support from them. He is also aware of the advice available to individuals from bodies such as the CRE, the Citizens Advice Bureau and the Free Representation Unit and could of course pay for legal advice if he wished. He could also enter into an arrangement to be represented on a conditional fee basis.
Mr Hawwari has chosen to bring the cases against the BBC. The BBC is defending cases and has no choice in the matter."
The letter then further disputed whether there was any power in the Employment Tribunal Rules for the Chairman or the Employment Tribunal to make a pre-emptive costs order of the type Mr Hawwari was apparently seeking. It argued that, in any event, it would be inappropriate for any such order to be made, the Appellant being an experienced litigant with alternative sources of representation available to him, and there being no question that he would not receive a fair trial as the Employment Tribunal system is set up to accommodate litigants in person.