Appeal No. EAT/527/91

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 30th October 1992

	Before

	THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)

	MR E HAMMOND OBE

	MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP

MISS M V WILLIAMS	APPELLANT

AUSTIN TAYLOR COMMS. LTD	RESPONDENTS

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

	PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

	

	MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT):  This is an appeal from a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Colwyn Bay under the learned Regional Chairman, Mr David Powell, who heard an application by Miss Williams that she had been unfairly dismissed.  The decision was by a majority.  The hearing took place over two days.

	There is a careful and lengthy decision given by the learned Regional Chairman of some eleven pages which sets out the whole history of the matter with the greatest care.  

	Before the Tribunal Miss Williams was represented by a Mr Alwyn Jones, a Solicitor of the firm Messrs Carter Vincent Trevor Jones & Co, Solicitors, Wellfield Offices, Bangor, Gwynedd, and the Company were represented by Mr Lawton, a Solicitor from Chester.

	The decision was promulgated on 1st August 1991, and the Notice of Appeal was received here on the 12th September 1991.

	The Notice of Appeal is not dated, it is the responsibility, because they are still there, of that firm of Solicitors.  It gives as grounds of appeal, the following:
"The decision which the Tribunal came to was inconsistent with the evidence given at the hearing."

nothing more.  Those Solicitors were at the hearing.  They must have their notes of the evidence, there is therefore no reason why some argument or particulars should not be given.  But that document, on the face of it, discloses no point of law.

	The case has been prepared by the staff here, with the necessary documentation being copied;  communication with the parties;  the fixing of the date and last night we received a message from the Solicitors saying they are not proceeding because legal aid has not been granted.

	It seems to us that this is a case where a great deal of cost at the public expense has been expended, which was not merited, certainly in so far as the grounds of appeal are concerned.  It is understandable that solicitors will want to prepare a notice of appeal to preserve the position pending the granting of legal aid but they at least could have given an indication of proper grounds for appeal, because even if legal aid had been granted this case would have been dismissed and on the legal aid taxation advice would have been given that any claims made for presenting this Notice of Appeal should be disallowed.  It is simply worthless.

	Secondly, the Notice of Appeal is dated September 1991, we are now nearly in November 1992 and it behoves solicitors who are appearing to try to obtain legal aid within a reasonable time after the hearing before the Tribunal and to press, if necessary, for information as to whether or not it is being granted.  If it was not to be granted then the appeal could have been withdrawn a long time ago.

	Thirdly, it is cases like this which fill our lists.  We are grossly overworked, in the sense of the volume of work coming through here and we are some 21/2 years behind in our hearings.  If this situation is multiplied a number of times then others who are waiting to have their case in the Appeals heard slip down the list.

	To summarise the views of all three Members of this Appeal Court at the moment, this was unreasonable conduct as it appears to us at present.  If there is an explanation and some of our strictures are unfair then we give leave to the firm of Solicitors to come here and we will certainly hear any explanation they have in the future.  But at present it appears to us that this appeal has been handled in a most unsatisfactory way.  If explanations there are, we will listen, but at the moment we are unaware of them.  The appeal is dismissed.