United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR RALPH WYNNE-GRIFFITHS (of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Clarke Willmot & Clarke Solicitors St James Court St James Parade Bristol BS1 3LH


 


JUDGE A WILKIE QC

1. This is the preliminary hearing of Mr Bicknell's appeal against the Decision of the Employment Tribunal which, on 2 August 2001, dismissed his application for a finding of unfair dismissal.
2. The essence of the complaint made by Mr Bicknell is that although he had complied meticulously with Orders of the Tribunal as to disclosure of documents and furnishing his witness statements, the Respondents failed to do so, and furnished him with documentation and witness statements only very shortly before the hearing itself. Mr Bicknell, representing himself, complains in his Notice of Appeal, in our judgment unarguably, that this so disadvantaged him that, effectively, he did not have a fair hearing.
3. Furthermore he, understandably, applied at the outset of the Tribunal hearing, for an Order striking out the Respondents' Notice of Appearance by reason of their failure to comply with directions. The Tribunal appears to have refused this application at the outset, but limited itself to making an Order for costs in his favour, in the sum of £100. There is, however, nothing in the Tribunal Decision which reveals the reasoning behind their refusal. They simply say that they did so for oral reasons, which they gave at the time, but do not rehearse what those reasons were.
4. It appears, however, that the Decision contains two arguable grounds of appeal, neither of which appears formally in the Notice of Appeal and which Mr Wynne-Griffiths invites us to permit him to include by way of amendment.
5. The first is that the Tribunal, apparently on its face, erred in law in referring to the 1993 Rules, whereas Mr Wynne-Griffiths says the Rules which were in force were the 2001 Rules. He says that that is a matter of substance in that the 2001 Rules contains, in Regulation 10, specific reference to the overriding objective, and that by mentioning only the 1993 Rule, the Tribunal failed to remind itself of this overriding objective.
6. The second is that Mr Wynne-Griffiths says that the Tribunal erred in law, having regard to that overriding objective, or in any event, by failing to consider the question of an adjournment even if it were not minded to grant Mr Bicknell's principal application of striking the Respondents' Notice of Appeal.
7. Those are both eminently arguable Grounds of Appeal and we therefore give permission to amend the existing Grounds of Appeal, by adding to them the draft which Mr Wynne-Griffiths has annexed to his Skeleton Argument.
8. In addition, the original grounds of appeal do take a point that there is nothing at all in the Tribunal's Reasons which deals with the question of whether the Respondents dealt with Mr Bicknell in a manner which was consistent, or inconsistent with the way they had dealt with other employees, in similar circumstances.
9. This was one of the bases for Mr Bicknell's complaint. There was evidence in the form of witness statements from Mr Jarman and Mr Shotton, witnesses of the Respondents, which asserted consistency. Mr Wynne-Griffiths points to the fact that within the documents at the Tribunal, there were certain notes of interviews with other employees, a Mr Rimmer and a Mr Pearce, which seemed to suggest the possibility of inconsistency of treatment. It is the omission of the Tribunal to refer to this issue at all in their Decision which is said to constitute a further ground of appeal, and we agree that it is an arguable ground of appeal.
10. We may say that in terms of its brevity and clarity, the Skeleton Argument of Mr Wynne-Griffiths is admirable and provides a quicker and easier way into the appeal than perhaps is provided by the grounds of appeal, originally drafted. However, we make no Order to substitute that Skeleton Argument, but merely observe that it is an admirably clear and concise document.
11. As far as directions for the hearing of this appeal is concerned, we agree with Mr Wynne-Griffiths that it is necessary that certain of the Chairman's Notes be made available at the full hearing, namely the notes of the evidence of Mr Jarman and Mr Shotton, where they deal with the question of consistent treatment, referred to by Mr Jarman in paragraph 16 of his witness statement, and Mr Shotton in paragraphs 5 and 6 of his witness statement.
12. In addition, it would be of assistance to the full hearing of the EAT for the Chairman's Notes on Mr Bicknell's application to strike out to be made available. Our preliminary view is that half a day would be sufficient for the hearing and Skeletons and authorities fourteen days in advance.