 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Sinclair v Rutherford Appleton Laboratory [1991] UKEAT 287_91_1706 (17 June 1991) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1991/287_91_1706.html Cite as: [1991] UKEAT 287_91_1706 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MS S R CORBY
MR J A POWELL
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant Miss F Sinclair
(In Person)
For the Respondents MR M SOOLE
(Of Counsel)
Messrs Waltons & Morse
Solicitors
Plantation House
31-35 Fenchurch Street
LONDON
EC3M 3NN
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): We have before us two Interlocutory Appeals against Orders made by the learned Regional Chairman, Mr Michael Rich on the 25th April of this year, when he gave Reasons, ultimately, on two occasions, for the two Orders that he made on that date, namely a refusal to transfer Miss Sinclair's case to a different region and a refusal to vacate the dates fixed for the hearing of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd of July 1991. The matters were made in the exercise of his discretion under the Rules and Miss Sinclair appeals.
The learned Chairman gave Full Reasons and amongst those reasons was a reference to the fact that the Originating Application was dated the 30th April 1990, and that a number of interlocutory applications and matters had been dealt with since that time.
Should anyone be arriving afresh at the voluminous documentation in this matter, it might help them to refer to a judgment of this Court dated the 5th March 1991, in which we tried to analyse the issues which seem to be arising.
The sole matters before us today are whether the learned Chairman was acting within the wide discretion available to him in refusing to transfer and in maintaining the dates. Miss Sinclair has again on this occasion, as she did on the last occasion, addressed us with ability and at length. We have listened not only to her oral submissions but we have read a substantial amount of documentation. Her Notice of Appeal runs to 8 pages. Her skeleton argument for today's case runs to 17 pages. Those documents together with the other documents have been read with care and have been considered by us.
The reasoning of the learned Chairman has helpfully been set out at length, and is contained in two documents the first dated 25th April and the second the 24th May. In order for Miss Sinclair to succeed she must show that the learned Chairman erred in law in the exercise of his discretion.
The application was made upon a number of grounds and in his Reasons of the 25th April, the learned Chairman sets six grounds. He answers and deals with each of those grounds in a very careful drafted judgment. We have read those, we have also read his Decision of 24th May in which he deals with the transfer to another region.
It is quite impossible to find any flaw in the exercise of his discretion. May we say, as we indicated on the last occasion in March, that we fully understand the depth of feeling of Miss Sinclair in this matter. She is anxious for the case to be heard as soon as possible, what she has been seeking is the evidence of the Respondents rather than Particulars and the basis on which that case will be presented. We feel that it is in her interests and the interests of justice in this matter that the case should be started as soon as possible, it is due to be heard on the 1st July.
We have mentioned in the past and we mention again, that if problems or difficulties arise during that hearing then those difficulties can be dealt with as and when they arise.
In the circumstances therefore we can find no grounds whatsoever for disturbing the Decision of the learned Chairman in these matters and these Appeals are dismissed.
We make a nominal award of £25 costs to be payable within 14 days.