[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Thompson v. Community Health South London NHS Trust [2001] UKEAT 1051_00_2509 (25 September 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1051_00_2509.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 1051__2509, [2001] UKEAT 1051_00_2509

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Mr Andrew Williams Representative


 


MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC

1. This is a preliminary hearing in a proposed appeal from the Employment Tribunal sitting at London South. The identity of the Tribunal, in terms of the location of its sitting is important. In Extended Reasons of 15 May 2000, it dismissed the Appellant's complaints that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of her race, and had been victimised. There was no appearance before the Tribunal by the Appellant. This followed a course of correspondence over the previous couple of weeks.
2. The Tribunal in its Decision purported to exercise its discretion to proceed to hear evidence, notwithstanding the absence of the Appellant, in exercise of its powers under Rule 9(3) of the 1993 Regulations. It heard the oral evidence of a witness for the Respondent; that witness was a Miss Fellows.
3. Before us, Mr Williams for Ms Thompson, has taken two main points: he has argued that the Tribunal did not give primacy to the need to ensure a fair hearing, in the sense of a sufficient opportunity by the Appellant to have her case heard. Had his submissions relied upon that alone, we would not have felt inclined, as we do, to give permission for this matter to be argued further.
4. But the second matter he raised was that on 24 November 1999, the Regional Chairman had written to both the Appellant and Respondent saying that he had decided to transfer the case from London South to London North because Ms Fellows, who was due to be called as a witness and who, as I have recounted did give evidence in the event, sat as a lay member of Employment Tribunals in Croydon and Ashford. No doubt what he had in mind was the appearance of bias if she were to appear as a witness before colleagues with whom she regularly sat.
5. We are troubled by the fact that there appears to have been no explanation of why it was that the Tribunal, following that letter, went ahead at London South, and we think it arguable that there may here be a sufficient appearance of bias, as to render the decision upon the application one which might be reviewed or remitted to another Tribunal for hearing, and it may imply that the decision to proceed, in the absence of the Appellant, should itself be subject to further scrutiny.
6. We shall say no more about the reasons for allowing this appeal to go forward. We have said what we have in the time that we have, because it is highly unusual for a challenge to the discretion of a Tribunal to proceed in the absence of a party to disclose any arguable point of law.
7. We think that because of the importance of the issues of bias and the importance there may be in giving any general directions or guidance in answer to the questions raised by a lay member giving evidence before a Tribunal, should be listed in Category B. We think that it would take no more than two hours to hear. Skeleton Arguments, together with any copies of any cases to be relied upon, to be provided not less than fourteen days prior to the hearing date.
8. There is one further direction, that is that a Notice of Appeal must be provided in an amended form. The current Notice of Appeal is not one which disclosed, in our view, any arguable point of law and it has not been argued by Mr Williams that it does. We direct therefore that in substitution for the Notice of Appeal as it stands, the hearing before this Tribunal should be conducted in accordance with this judgment.