Appeal No.	 EAT/13/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 2 March 1998

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR A C BLYGHTON
MR R H PHIPPS

C T L COMPONENTS LTD	APPELLANTS

MR P ROOKWOOD	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR QUIGLEY
(of Counsel)
Appearing under the
Employment Law Appeal
Advice Scheme	

	JUDGE PETER CLARK:     This interlocutory appeal raises two questions.  The first is whether an Industrial Tribunal sitting under the chairmanship of Mr Lamb at London (South) on 17 October 1997, had jurisdiction to re-visit an order made by a Chairman, Mr Peters, on 26 August 1997, refusing the Respondent employee’s application for leave to amend his Originating Application to add a complaint of unlawful racial discrimination.

	The second question is whether, even if the Lamb Tribunal had jurisdiction so to do, it nevertheless erred in law in allowing the amendment, bearing in mind the guidance given by Mummery J in Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836, when compared with the approach of the Appeal Tribunal in Home Office v Bose [1979] ICR 481.

	Having considered those two points we think that the appeal ought to proceed to a full appeal hearing, particularly in circumstances where the Respondent in his PHD form acknowledges that there is an arguable point of law to be considered by this Tribunal.

	It follows that this appeal will be allowed to proceed to a full hearing.  It will not be listed before 17 March, which is currently the date on which a three-day hearing before the Industrial Tribunal is fixed to begin.  

	It follows in our view that that hearing must be adjourned and we so direct, pending the outcome of this appeal.  We shall list the case Category C for half a day, skeleton arguments to be exchanged between the parties not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing.  Copies of those skeleton arguments to be lodged with this Tribunal at the same time.