Appeal No.	 EAT/16/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 22 June 1998

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J HULL QC
MS S R CORBY
MR T C THOMAS CBE

DR C IHENACHO	APPELLANT

WANDSWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	DR C IHENACHO
(in person)	

	JUDGE J HULL QC:	This is the Preliminary Hearing of an appeal to us by Dr Ihenacho, a school teacher, and it is connected with a matter which has been before us before.   

	In that matter, Dr Ihenacho appealed to us;  the division of this Employment Appeal Tribunal which heard the appeal was Chaired by me and Mr Thomas, who sits on my right today, was also a Member of the Tribunal.   Our conclusion was wholly unfavourable to Dr Ihenacho, albeit of course purely on points of law and Dr Ihenacho has, very courteously, expressed some misgivings about our hearing her case today.   

	I should say that the decision in that other case, being upheld by us, wholly unfavourable, as I say, to Dr Ihenacho, very much figured in the present proceedings in which Dr Ihenacho complains, among other things, of unfair dismissal.   It was agreed by Dr Ihenacho’s Counsel that the findings of fact of the Industrial Tribunal in that other matter were in fact binding on her in the present matter and the Industrial Tribunal heard the case on that basis.   So Dr Ihenacho, in a way which we appreciate and understand, says that in those circumstances she is not entirely happy that we should hear the present appeal, on the basis that we may have reached conclusions about her or the merits of her case, or the merits of the previous case, which would affect our judgement here, and of course it is not for us to say whether those were correct or incorrect they were the conclusions which we formed on that occasion and so far as we know were not appealed and in those circumstances they stand.  

	Mr Thomas and I have thought as carefully as we can about this, with the help of Ms Corby, and we have decided that the objection made is a reasonable one;  not in the sense of being a legally undoubted proposition or anything like that but being one where we respect the feelings that Dr Ihenacho puts forward and mentions to us and we think that it is very important that she should have an opportunity to be satisfied in every way, so far as she can, with the composition of the Tribunal which hears her case.   

	This is a Tribunal which sits in several different divisions and accordingly it is purely by chance or mischance that it comes before a Tribunal chaired by me and with another Member who sat on the previous occasion.   It is the sort of thing which is always a possibility but by no means a probability.   There is therefore no practical obstacle to the matter being listed for a Preliminary Hearing in front of another division Chaired by a different Chairman and with Members who do not include either Mr Thomas or Mr Dawson, who sat with me on that occasion.   

	We do not regard what is said by Dr Ihenacho as being in any way a criticism of us.   We have done our duty.   She is entitled to her rights.  She is entitled, we think, not merely, as she puts it herself, to see justice done but to feel that is has been done.   Her feelings, as I have explained, are not irrational and we therefore, with regret, because it means a certain amount of wasted effort, say that we are prepared to stand this case out to another date to be fixed and ask for it to be listed in front of a Tribunal not chaired by me and of which neither Mr Thomas nor Mr Dawson are Members.   That is the decision of us all.