No A1/2002/1302
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 1455
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE                         
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) 
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL 
AND AN EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION 
FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Wednesday, 25th September 2002
B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

DEMAN
Applicant
- v -

UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD and Others
Respondents

DEMAN
Applicant
- v -

ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS
Respondents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

(Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2HD
Tel: 0171 421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

The applicant appeared in person
The respondents were not represented and did not attend

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

J U D G M E N T
1.	LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY: There are two applications before the court. In both of them the application is for permission to appeal. In both of them the applicant Mr Suresh Deman, who has appeared in person, seeks an adjournment.
2.	The first case brought by him is against the Association of University Teachers. In those proceedings he claimed against the Association race discrimination and victimisation in relation to alleged failures to investigate his complaints of racial discrimination in Queen's University, Belfast, where he was a probationary lecturer in the Finance Department between 14th 
3.	February 1994 and 30th September 1995. Dr Deman also alleges that the Association refused to grant him legal assistance for his claim against Queen's University, Belfast and that refusal constituted race discrimination and victimisation. That case was heard at London North at hearings in September 1998 and February 1999. In the extended reasons, which were given for the decision on 23rd April 1999, the claims were dismissed.
4.	Dr Deman then appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and that appeal was dismissed on 22nd April 2002 for reasons stated in the judgment of the President, Mr Justice Lindsay, on behalf of the appeal tribunal. Dr Deman wishes to have permission to appeal against that decision. He contends that there are errors of law in the original decision of the Employment Tribunal at London North. 
5.	Dr Deman has another case, which he started in December 2001 against the University of Bradford alleging race discrimination and victimisation. Directions were given by the Employment Tribunal in March 2001 for a preliminary hearing on the issue whether the claims were brought within the time limits provided for in the Race Relations Act. At the end of March Dr Deman was notified that the preliminary hearing would take place on 27th May. Dr Deman then made an application in May for the proceedings to be transferred out of the area on grounds that he did not think he would receive a fair hearing and for an adjournment of that hearing. The regional chairman (Mr Sneath) refused the application. In his letter of 14th May 2002 to the Council for Ethnic Minority, England and Wales, he directed as follows:
“I have no power to transfer this case to Scotland. The hearing listed for 27th May 2002 shall proceed before a tribunal, the members of which shall be selected according to availability.”
6.	Dr Deman unsuccessfully appealed that decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal on 24th May 2002. That had been dealt with by the President, Mr Justice Lindsay.
7.	At the beginning of July 2002 Dr Deman lodged a notice of appeal with this court. I have been told by him this morning that the hearing of 27th May in fact went ahead and a determination was made, the result of which was that he was successful in part. He is intending to appeal the part on which he was not successful to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
8.	In relation to these applications for permission to appeal to this court a number of letters were written to the Civil Appeals Office seeking to have them adjourned. The Master of the Civil Appeals refused the application to vacate the hearing. It was notified to Dr Deman on 12th September that the hearing date would go ahead and the application would remain listed for today. The application was renewed. In a letter of 17th September Dr Deman was notified that Master Venne had considered his application for an adjournment and concluded that he could see nothing in the new material supplied which justified altering his previous direction.
9.	A fresh attempt was made yesterday to obtain an adjournment. Letters were faxed to the Civil Appeals Office from the India-America Society Civil Rights UK and from a firm of solicitors, Kirk & Partners, who acted for Dr Deman in connection with the proceedings before the Employment Appeal Tribunal, in which he had been publicly funded. It appears from the latest letters sent on Dr Deman's behalf that he is still seeking to obtain public funding by an amendment of the certificate to cover representation on the present appeal. That application has not yet been dealt with by the Legal Services Commission. It also appears from those letters that Dr Deman wishes to be represented, subject to public funding being granted, by counsel, Mr John Davis of Littleton Chambers. Kirk & Partners state that Mr Davis is unable to appear today. Dr Deman has informed me that Mr Davis is representing him in another case proceeding in the Employment Tribunal at Ashford. In that case Mr Davis is representing Dr Deman in respect of claims against the University of Greenwich for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. I was informed that that hearing has not yet been completed. It was adjourned from March and is due to resume during the period from 8th October to 26th October, so Mr Davis would not be available during that period to appear for Dr Deman on these applications.
10.	What I have before me is a last minute application for an adjournment, which has been refused by the Master. The application is made on the basis both of the need for time to sort out the public funding position and so that - subject to public funding - counsel who Dr Deman wishes to have representing him will be available in this court.
11.	With some reluctance in view of the delays that adjournments cause and the disruption they cause to the service the court is able to provide to other litigants, I think this is an appropriate case for an adjournment, so that Mr Davis, who is quoted in various documents put before me, can appear to represent Dr Deman and assist the court on why these applications for permission to appeal should be granted. The court will, unless there is a satisfactory explanation to the contrary, expect Mr Davis to appear on these applications and to supply to the court in advance of the hearing skeleton arguments in relation to both applications.
12.	I should mention specifically in this judgment, as I mentioned in discussion with Dr Deman, the position as I see it in relation to the Bradford case. It seems to me on the information available that the proposed appeal in that case has been overtaken by events. As I have indicated, the grounds of appeal there were errors of law on the part of the regional chairman in saying he had no power to transfer the case out of the area to Scotland and he was not prepared to grant an adjournment of the hearing of 27th May. The case was not transferred or adjourned; it went ahead and was decided on hearing of 28th May. It seems to me there is little point in that appeal being pursued when the arguments which Dr Deman may wish to make about the hearing on 27th May can all be made in the appeal he proposes to bring not to this court direct but to the Employment Tribunal. At first I was tempted to dispose of that today. As I am adjourning the other one the best thing is to adjourn both of them so that counsel can advise comprehensively about Dr Deman's position in his attempt to appeal to this court.
13.	I will adjourn both applications for one month with a direction that they are not to be relisted before 26th October. Secondly, skeleton arguments are to be submitted in support of both applications. Thirdly, those skeleton arguments should be prepared by Mr Davis of counsel who, I understand, will be instructed to represent Dr Deman, subject to the question of public funding. On those terms I propose to make the order adjourning the applications. Is there anything unclear about that?
14.	THE APPLICANT: No.
15.	(Discussion re documents)
16.	LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY: I add to my judgment that it now appears from discussions I have had with Dr Deman that he has obtained from the Civil Appeals Office an order allowing him to amend his grounds of appeal. Directions were given which he says were complied with for the amendment and for the lodging of a skeleton argument in relation to the application regarding the Association of University Teachers. The papers which have been supplied to me do not contain either the amended grounds or any skeleton argument which, I understand, was settled by Mr Davis. All the documents I have in the appeal bundle are those listed in the index and the amended order and skeleton are not mentioned in the index. That is not surprising as I understand the index was prepared before the amendment. Nor have they been added to the bundle or sent to me loose. I have suggested to Dr Deman that, while he is in the Royal Courts of Justice, he should go to the Civil Appeals Office to clarify the position about these additional documents. Every effort should be made to see that they are included in the bundles and that they are available for the adjourned hearing of these applications.
Order: Applications adjourned