Appeal No.	 EAT/1335/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 16 December 1996

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MISS C HOLROYD
MR P R A JACQUES CBE

MS D E CHAMBERS	APPELLANT

LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	APPELLANT IN PERSON	
For the Respondents	MS G WALSH
(Solicitor)
London Borough of Lambeth
Lambeth Town Hall
Brixton Hill
London
SW2  1RW	

		MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):   This is an Interlocutory appeal arising out of directions which have been given by an Industrial Tribunal Chairman in relation to Ms Chambers’ complaint of unlawful discrimination brought by her against the London Borough of Lambeth, her former employers.  The case has been fixed for hearing for three days - 2, 3 and 6 January 1997.

	Following the hearing before the Industrial Tribunal Chairman, Ms Chambers made a number of complaints about the way that hearing had been conducted and more specifically, the Chairman’s attitude to her and to her case.  She contacted the Industrial Tribunal raising a complaint about that matter and they invited her to write in to the Regional Chairman, which she did.  Following that, she was notified by the Industrial Tribunal on 22 November 1996 that any appeal that she might have against the Chairman’s directions was not a matter which could be dealt with by the Industrial Tribunal, but only by this Employment Appeal Tribunal, and reference was made to a time limit, without particularity.

	Within something like a week of receiving that letter, a Notice of Appeal was filed, which technically is out of time.  Ms Chambers accepts from us that if she wishes to persist with a complaint of bias or unfairness in the way in which the Interlocutory hearing was held, we would have to require her to make and swear an Affidavit, which should be submitted to the Chairman concerned for his comments, and that without going down that procedure we would not be in a position to make any comment at all on her allegation of bias, other than the obvious comment that these allegations are easy to make and in our experience are frequently made when there is no substance for them.

	However, Ms Chambers says that in the light of what I have indicated to her, she was prepared to not proceed with that allegation, and accordingly, we have approached this matter on the basis that she had a full and fair hearing before the Industrial Tribunal when it gave its directions on 26 September 1996.

	The first question we have to consider is whether we should entertain this appeal, bearing in mind that it was lodged out of time.  Ms Chambers is plainly suffering from some kind of stress, although not of a sort which renders her unfit for work.  We would not, on account of her stress, have thought that there was any good reason for lodging her appeal out of time but she also says, as appears to be the case, that she has encountered difficulty with the legal adviser whom she obtained through the Free Representation Unit.  There is no doubt that she has felt aggrieved by the way she felt she was being let-down by that organisation, in respect of which she has made a complaint.

	What Ms Chambers says is that a combination of being let-down by her lawyer and stress, and the fact that she is endeavouring as best she can to prepare herself for trial, has occupied all her available time and for that reason she regrets that she was out of time in presenting her appeal.  She also, and, we think, with some justification, takes the point that it was only on about 23 November 1996 that she realised that an appeal would have to be lodged with us, as opposed to pursuing her complaint with the original Tribunal who promulgated the Interlocutory directions.

	We do not wish this case to be used as any kind of precedent.  It seems to us that we can in the exceptional circumstances of this case entertain her appeal.  It seems to us that no criticism can be made of any of the decisions arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal on the 26 September.  What this appeal is really about is the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, subsequently given, whereby the case was fixed for hearing to commence on 2 January.  Ms Chambers told us and we accept, that she is simply not going to be in a position to deal with her case on that occasion for a combination of reasons, including stress, the problems she has had in the past with obtaining sensible and consistent legal advice, and the problem she still faces in obtaining legal assistance.  We have seen material which indicates that she is actively seeking such assistance.  

	This is the sort of case where the Tribunal will be assisted by Ms Chambers having legal assistance if such can be obtained by her. It seems to us that to cause her to participate in proceedings on the 2 January when she is in a mess (to use a colloquial expression) and without the benefit of legal assistance, would be less than fair, and could produce a burning sense of injustice on her part.  Accordingly, we have invited the London Borough of Lambeth to take instructions as to whether they would be prejudiced or would oppose a suggestion that the case which is due to be heard on 2 January should be postponed.  We have been assisted by Ms Walsh’s response which was that the London Borough of Lambeth would not oppose Ms Chambers’ suggestion that the matter should be adjourned.  We are not surprised if we might respectfully say so by that attitude.  They have also obviously had a chance to hear what Ms Chambers has got to say.  It can also be added that only recently have they answered the Race Relations questionnaire, which is a document likely to play some significant role in the proceedings which will have to take place in due time.

	Accordingly, it seems to us that the matter should not proceed for a substantive hearing as currently fixed by the Industrial Tribunal.  We regret taking this course because we are extremely well aware of the time pressures which are on Industrial Tribunals and the disruption that is caused to their business by this Court interfering with a listing.  Nonetheless in the exceptional circumstances of this case, we consider that justice can only be done by us acceding to this request.  It should be made plain that there is to be no criticism of the Industrial Tribunal in relation to the fixing of this case.  It seems to us that they were well entitled to take the view that they did.  

	It seems to us that there are still some outstanding Interlocutory matters which require to be dealt with.  In the first place the Appellant was ordered by a letter dated 5 December to make disclosure of certain documents within fourteen days.  She tells us, and we accept, that she is not in a position to comply with that order within time and indeed there may be questions as to what documents she should be disclosing, if any.  That is a question which can be dealt with at an Interlocutory hearing.  In addition to that, the Appellant has indicated to us that there are certain questions which she would like to have dealt with by the Lambeth Borough Council.  She says that there are still letters which she has written to them asking for information which have not been replied to, to which she would wish to have answers; it seems to us that those questions can also be raised at an Interlocutory hearing.  

	It may well be that the Industrial Tribunal, when appraised of this order, will wish to take advantage of one of the three days that have been currently set aside, for the purpose of having a further Interlocutory hearing.  We should make it plain furthermore, that Ms Chambers should be given this chance, but that if subsequently she were to ask for further indulgence from the Industrial Tribunal or from this Court, she should bear in mind that she has been given more latitude on this occasion than would normally be the case, and she cannot expect such generosity in the future.  

	Accordingly, to this very limited extent, appreciating that the Notice of Appeal is not so much directed to this point, we shall allow the appeal to order that the hearing which has been fixed for 2 January does not take place on the substance of her complaint, but the Tribunal are respectfully invited to consider whether any of those three dates might be made available for the parties to have a further Interlocutory hearing.  Ms Chambers has indicated that she would be ready for a hearing some time from the end of February.  Our enquiries informally made through the Listing Office in the Industrial Tribunal, showed that there may be dates from 18 to 20 March, but we are not prepared to fix any such hearing date, as it seems to us that that would amount to a wrongful interference with the Tribunal’s regulation of their own procedure and we are not prepared to do that.  It goes without saying that having asked for the case to be adjourned, it is a relatively stale matter and the sooner it can be fairly heard and disposed of, the better.