Appeal No. EAT/759/92

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 4th November 1992

	Before

	THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)

	MR P DAWSON OBE

	MISS A MACKIE

MR D D'SOUZA	APPELLANT

THE LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH	RESPONDENTS

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR D D'SOUZA
(The Appellant Appearing in Person)

For the Respondents	NO APPEARANCE BY OR 
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

	MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT):  Mr D'Souza, the Appellant before us, has a number of applications which are extant either before an industrial tribunal or before this Appeal Tribunal. 

	The first was initiated in 1987 and that alleged racial discrimination.  It was promulgated in 1989.

	 He appealed to this Tribunal by Notice of Appeal on 6th June 1989.  In July 1991 there was an agreement reached between the parties whereby the appeal was allowed and the case was remitted to be heard by a fresh industrial tribunal.

	That hearing took place on the 13th and 17th January 1992.  Mr D'Souza failed and has appealed to this Tribunal. 

	That second appeal originating from that first application is still to be heard before this Tribunal.  The allegations there are of misconduct by the Tribunal Chairman, who was the second Chairman to consider his problems.

	Since 1987 six more Originating Applications have been issued, two in 1988;  two in 1989 and two in 1990.  

	He, Mr D'Souza, represents himself in the first four of those in each of which he alleges racial discrimination and victimisation.

	In the fifth one, which is sixth overall, he alleges unfair dismissal together with racial discrimination and victimisation.  In that case, the unfair dismissal case he is represented by Counsel and Solicitors, Messrs Karim & Co.

	In the last application, which again alleges racial discrimination and victimisation, there are two Respondents, therefore, in cases which we have numbered overall numbers 6 and 7, because we treat the 1987 application as number one, those two cases could be said to be somewhat different from numbers two to five because of the unfair issue and the representation, and in the last one the two Respondents, namely, an employment agency together with the Borough.

	He, Mr D'Souza has been seeking a hearing for directions in front of the industrial tribunal for some time and this has been refused.  He dealt with a number of other matters in connection with the sequence in which his cases should be heard.  Which should be heard together.  Which should be left for a different date.  Those matters were all dealt with by a letter of the 28th October 1992, that is just a few days ago, by the Industrial Tribunal.

	The hearing of his cases is due to start next Monday, 9th November.  The Industrial Tribunal have refused to vacate those dates.  It has refused to give a definite decision on how the claims will be arranged to be heard and whether there should be a consecutive hearing including the last two or not.  They have refused a hearing for directions, saying, as is often done, that we will look at any problems that may arise on documentation and other issues when the hearing starts but that it may be that we can deal with one aspect of the matter and adjourn another aspect or put it back because there is nine days given for this matter.  They then indicated that the Regional Chairman had decided upon the Chairman for this Tribunal.

	Mr D'Souza has appeared before us on an interlocutory appeal in connection with all these matters.  He asks us to order a hearing for directions, the decision whether or not to have such a hearing is essentially one for the Chairman at the Industrial Tribunal, it is a wide discretion, it must be exercised conditionally, but we see no reason to interfere with the decision to deal with these matters when the hearings start.  There will be no prejudice to Mr D'Souza because if in fact there is a huge bundle and he needs time to look at them no doubt he can apply for an adjournment.  Maybe there are just a few documents in which case the matter can be considered at the time.  Those are the sort of matters that are best dealt with at the hearing in some cases, it is a matter for the discretion of the learned Chairman, and we see no indication that there has been an error in the application of that discretion.

	The second matter to which Mr D'Souza refers, in his letter of the 29th October 1992, is to ask us, first of all to accelerate his appeal here and secondly, to ensure that it was heard before his cases came to be heard before the Industrial Tribunal.

	The decision which is under appeal, as we have already mentioned, was heard on the 13th and 17th January 1992.  Mr D'Souza was represented by Mr Munasinghe, who is well known to us as a capable and careful member of the Bar.  It is clear that Mr Munasinghe had some problems because as indicated in paragraph 5 of the Reasons:
"The hearing of this case has been unusually difficult.  The applicant was represented by Counsel who had the greatest possible difficulty in conducting a case for a client who seemingly wished to retain control of the proceedings."

The complaints that are levelled at that decision deal very largely with the way in which the matter was conducted.  But it is quite clear that Counsel was representing Mr D'Souza and those matters which he raises, in some eight very closely typed pages, by way of a notice of appeal, will not affect, as far as we can see the hearing of the subsequent matters and if needs be all the appeals, if appeals there are to this Court, can be heard together.

	We see, therefore, no reason to expedite his appeal to this Court, nor to order that the hearings on Monday should not start until the hearing of the appeal before us.

	The fourth matter that Mr D'Souza deals with is the question of the constitution of the Tribunal.  That has been carefully considered by the learned Regional Chairman and she has decided that a particular Chairman shall sit, that Chairman is familiar with the background to these matters and it may very well save time, for her to sit.  That was again a matter for discretion.  If there are complaints subsequently those matters can be dealt with but we see no reason at present to interfere with that decision.

	Lastly, Mr D'Souza asked for an interim order to stay the hearing of the cases below until we have heard the appeal.  That is really the inverse or converse of what is sought earlier.  These matters have been carefully considered by the learned Regional Chairman, in giving the direction which she has.  Mr D'Souza is clearly anxious that his position may be prejudiced because discovery has not been ordered at an earlier stage.  Let us try to assure him that it is always possible to adjourn a case if any question of unfairness arises.  It is far more important and indeed, desirable, that someone should take control of these cases, to see what the issues are, analyse the best way in which to deal with the hearings and that they should be brought to a hearing.

	In the circumstances, therefore, we would seek to assure Mr D'Souza that there is no disadvantage to him from the way in which this matter is proposed to be dealt with by the Industrial Tribunals.  It is a matter for their discretion and we are quite unable to indicate here that they have erred in such a way that we have any right to interfere with the decisions which have been reached.

	It follows, Mr D'Souza, that we are unable to interfere with the decisions already made by the Industrial Tribunal and we dismiss your appeals.  Perhaps, you would like a copy of that in due course, no doubt.