United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK

1. By a letter dated 20 December 2002, addressed to the Leeds Employment Tribunal and received by the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 3 January 2003 (treated as a potential Notice of Appeal) Mr Deveney, the Applicant, indicated his intention to appeal against 2 orders made by a Chairman, Mr C T Grazin, sitting alone at the Leeds Employment Tribunal. They were:

(1) A direction made on 10 October 2002 and contained at paragraph 3 of a written order dated 21 October that there be a hearing of a preliminary issue as to whether or not the Applicant was dismissed by the Respondent, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, for the purposes of his complaint of unfair dismissal; that hearing to take place on 22-23 January 2003, and

(2) The Chairman's refusal, following a telephone directions hearing held on 13 December 2002 to allow the Applicant to amend his Originating Application to add a complaint under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA).

2. On 14 January 2003 the Registrar wrote to the Applicant rejecting the appeal on the grounds that it raised no question of law giving the Employment Appeal Tribunal jurisdiction to entertain it. EAT Rule Rule 3(7). Employment Tribunal Act 1996. Section 21(1).
3. The Applicant expressed dissatisfaction with the Registrar's ruling by a letter dated 31 January and the matter was put before me for a hearing under Rule 3(10) on 7 March 2003. The Applicant has not attended that hearing but relies on his written submissions contained in his letter of 31 January 2003 and the bundle including that letter and the Notice of Appeal extending to 107 pages which is before me.
4. As to the orders sought to be appealed:

(1) The Chairman has a wide discretion to order a preliminary hearing under Rule 6 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2001.

I am unable to discern any challenge in law to that exercise of discretion.

(2) The Originating Application was presented on about 12 February 2002, alleging unfair dismissal only in box 1. The application to add a claim under DDA was made by letter dated 28 November 2002, well out of time. The issue for the Chairman was whether the proposed amendment added a new cause of action or whether it simply attached a new label to facts already pleaded in the Originating Application. He decided that it was the former and refused the amendment. He was plainly entitled to reach that conclusion on the face of the Originating Application. I see nothing in the grounds of appeal or the Applicant's letter of 31 January which remotely amounts to a legal challenge to that ruling.

5. Finally, the Chairman's conduct of the various interlocutory proceedings in this case. First, the Applicant complains that the telephone directions hearing took place on 13 December without his taking part. That is correct. I note, at paragraph 1 of the Chairman's Order for Directions dated 30 December 2002 that the Applicant attended the Leeds Employment Tribunal offices prior to 13 December and indicated to a member of staff that he did not wish to be telephoned by the Employment Tribunal.
6. More generally, he complains about Mr Grazin's conduct of interlocutory hearings which he did attend, for example that held on 9 August 2002. The short answer is that Mr Grazin has recused himself from sitting on any substantive hearings in this case. Order dated 21 October 2002, paragraph 7.
7. In conclusion, having read the papers in this matter I am not persuaded that the proposed appeal raises any question of law on the particular facts and circumstances of this case and accordingly I shall direct that no further action be taken on this appeal.