[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Budgett v. Post Office [1999] UKEAT 554_99_2807 (28 July 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/554_99_2807.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 554_99_2807

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	IN PERSON


 


JUDGE LEVY: This is an appeal by Mr Phillip John Budgett ("the Appellant") against the decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting in Manchester on 27 November 1998. The Appellant had made an application to an Industrial Tribunal complaining of unfair dismissal/disability discrimination. In Box 11 of his complaint he said:

"The employer discriminated against me under the Disability Discrimination Act by failing to offer the alternative of retirement on medical grounds and applying the Royal Mail Capability Ill Health Procedure."

1. Some particulars were asked of him as to his complaint under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which he failed to answer. When the matter came before a Tribunal on 27 November 1998, the Applicant told the Tribunal that he thought he had responded to the order but he was unable to produce any documentary evidence to that effect. Following the hearing on 27 November 1998, the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the Appellant's complaint under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Summary Reasons for that decision was sent to the parties on 14 December 1998. Part of those reasons read:

"6. …. when the applicant was specifically and clearly asked what his answer to the request for particulars would have been, he confirmed that the basis and the only basis of his complaint under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was because he considered that the respondents should have medically retired him on the grounds that he was not capable of carrying out any work. It was quite clear that there was no other basis upon which a complaint under the Act could be brought, he maintaining that he has at all material times and continuing been incapable of carrying out any work at all for the respondents.

7. As was indicated in paragraph 1 of the directions contained in the letter dated 14 October 1998, such being the nature of the applicant's claim, it is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

8. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal, therefore, is that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the applicant's complaint under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995."

Paragraph 9 pointed out that an unfair dismissal claim remained outstanding.

2. From the dismissal on grounds of jurisdiction, Mr Budgett has appealed to us and we have explained to him in the course of the hearing that in our judgment the reasons given by the Chairman in the decision that was promulgated on 14 December were absolutely right. There is simply no jurisdiction under the 1995 Act for a Tribunal to give the relief which Mr Budgett sought. This appeal has no hope of success at all, and in the circumstances it is our duty to dismiss it at this stage. Mr Budgett has presented his submissions to us addressing us on the facts clearly and fully, but they do not give a basis in law for us allowing this appeal.
3. Mr Budgett has asked us to see a number of documents in the course of the hearing which we declined to do because from what he said of them, it would not have opened up any avenue which would have helped us to permit this appeal to proceed to a full hearing.