Appeal No.	 EAT/564/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 28 April 1998

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
MR A E R MANNERS
MS D WARWICK

THE POST OFFICE	APPELLANT

MR Z JANJUA	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

INTERLOCUTORY

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MISS J HEAL
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Mr M Zuke
(Solicitor)
The Post Office Legal Services
Impact House
2 Edridge Road
Croydon
CR9 1PJ	

For the Respondent	
NO REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):	This is an interlocutory appeal. It is a race discrimination complaint brought by an employee of the Post Office against his employers. The nature of the complaint is set out in the IT1 with particulars of claim given in paragraph 11. 

	The way the complaint was presented in the IT1 left a large number of questions unanswered as to the true nature of the allegations which were being made. It is important in cases such as these that the tribunal is able to identify in advance of a hearing the precise nature of the complaints which the complainant is making. Justice can only be done if the employers in a case such as this can prepare themselves and deal with precise allegations.

	Certain correspondence then eventuated. The applicant responded to a request for further and better particulars. But it is reasonably clear to us that the case is not yet in a shape where it can be tried in a form which does justice to both parties.

	The case is scheduled to be heard on 1st May 1998. The Post Office have asked the Industrial Tribunal to consider a postponement, bearing in mind the lack of particularity of the complaint. The application was refused:

“The Chairman feels that the hearing should go ahead. If, on the day, the Respondent is faced with a difficulty over the Further Particulars, a further request for a postponement can be made.”

	The Post Office then wrote again suggesting that the 1st May 1998 could be used not for the purposes of the hearing, but to enable the tribunal to give directions as to the future conduct of this case. It was followed by a letter dated 24th April 1998 which said:

“In the further particulars the Applicant says that the Respondent has done nothing to deter Mr Bark from carrying out further acts of harassment and provocation. In paragraph 5 he refers to continued and consistent harassment, intimidation and provocation by Mr Bark. The Chairman does not see why the Applicant should not give full details of every such act alleged and he should do so as soon as possible.”

There was a fax from the Citizens Advice Bureau who have been looking after the applicant’s interests, of the same date, which says that the applicant is unable to provide full details of the allegations he has made against Mr Bark apart from what is contained in the Originating Application and the further and better particulars.

	The appeal has been brought here because the Post Office are fearful if they were to attend on 1st May 1998 they might find themselves being forced to participate in a substantive hearing when they simply are not in a position with their witnesses to deal with an unparticularised complaint.

	The attitude of the respondent to this appeal, Mr Janjua, is not entirely clear, but they have kindly indicated to us that they did not intend to be present at the hearing and have made no written representations to us.

	It seems to us obvious in a case such as this that further directions are required from the Industrial Tribunal as to the future conduct of this case. We respectfully invite the Industrial Tribunal Chairman to consider whether it would not be appropriate, bearing in mind that that applicant has the benefit of representation, for witness statements to be exchanged between the parties in advance of the hearing, quite apart from any further particulars that the tribunal might think should be ordered at this time.

	It seems to us, therefore, that the hearing date, 1st May 1998, should be retained for this case, but solely for the purpose of giving the necessary directions to enable this case to come before the Industrial Tribunal in a state where justice can be done between the parties. We are satisfied that at the present time the Post Office can legitimately say that they are not in a position to defend themselves against this serious allegation. 

	Accordingly, technically we dismiss the appeal, but we do so on the basis that we are confident that the learned Chairman on 1st May 1998 will take the opportunity to give all necessary and proper directions for the future fair disposal of this case.