[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Naqvi v Watson [1998] UKEAT 1121_97_1201 (12 January 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/1121_97_1201.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 1121_97_1201

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR ANTHONY HOWARD (of Counsel) Messrs Krinvinskas & Company Solicitors Greg's Buildings 1 Booth Street Manchester M2 4DU


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether or not there are arguable points of law raised in this appeal on behalf of the appellant, Dr Naqvi.

The position is this. There was a remedies hearing before an Industrial Tribunal on 22nd May 1997. Representations were made on behalf of Dr Naqvi, who was the respondent, that the remedies hearing should be adjourned because she was ill. It appears to be accepted that she was genuinely ill. The tribunal refused her application for an adjournment and proceeded to award Mrs Watson compensation without having the benefit of hearing from Dr Naqvi or Dr Naqvi having an opportunity of testing the evidence which was given.

The first ground of appeal advanced in this case is that the decision of the Industrial Tribunal not to grant an adjournment was unfair and perverse.

We think, without expressing any view as to the final outcome on that point, that that point is arguable.

Having proceeded in that manner, the Industrial Tribunal concluded from all the circumstances that an award of costs should be made against Dr Naqvi from 9th April 1996 such costs to be taxed on County Court Scale II.

It follows from what we have said, that that Order was made at a hearing at which Dr Naqvi was not present. Again, without expressing any views, it seems to us that it is arguable that the tribunal's decision to award costs was perverse and should not have been made without giving Dr Naqvi an opportunity to respond to the application which was made at that hearing.

On those two points, therefore, we consider that the matter is fit for argument before a division of this Court. As to directions, it appears to us having heard Mr Howard's helpful points, that it is a short appeal, one hour and a half no more from start to finish. It can be listed as Category C, and I would suggest, if available, that His Honour Judge Peter Clark could deal with this. No Notes of Evidence so far as we can tell are required. There is no need to amend the Notice of Appeal, but I should add that the point which is made in the skeleton argument, namely that the tribunal ought to have given extended reasons has now fallen by the wayside, bearing in mind the hearing which took place before Lindsay J and colleagues on 17th November 1997, when the Employment Appeal Tribunal indicated that it was prepared to treat the summary reasons as being in extended reason form. They are full, and we have no doubt that the appeal can be dealt with on that basis.