Appeal No.	 EAT/683/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On  1 June 1998

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J HULL QC
MRS R CHAPMAN
MR E HAMMOND OBE

MR W D HANLON	APPELLANT

UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT	
For the Respondent	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS	

	JUDGE HULL QC:   This is an appeal to us in a case in which Mr William Deward Hanlon applies for certain relief to the Industrial Tribunal on the basis of disability discrimination.  I need say no more about it except that Mr Hanlon is apparently not only seriously disabled but is at the moment thoroughly unwell and is in hospital suffering both physical and psychological problems and is in no condition to attend the Tribunal.  

	In those circumstances, a good deal has gone on in this case.  The Chairman of Industrial Tribunals has said that he wishes to hold an Interlocutory Hearing on 17 June 1998.  He gave notice of his wish to hold such a hearing.  He wrote on 5 June 1998 to Mrs Hanlon:
“The only response the Chairman wants at this stage is whether you will attend the hearing on 17 June or not.  If not, you must provide reasons for a postponement and if that is on medical grounds, you must provide a medical certificate in support.”

	Mrs Hanlon has been conducting the case on behalf of Mr Hanlon.  She is not, of course, a professional advocate.  She complains among other things that it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain proper instructions from Mr Hanlon at the moment because of his illness.  She does not wish to upset him.  One can understand all that.  But all that has been said by the Chairman is that he wishes to hold an Interlocutory Hearing on 17 June.  

	The Respondents, who are the University of Huddersfield, have said they do not wish to attend today.  They have given certain grounds for saying that this appeal is altogether incompetent.  We do not need to go into that.  The fact is that it must be within the discretion of a Chairman in any case to say that he wishes to hold an Interlocutory Hearing for all sorts of purposes beneficial to the parties, considering various matters and obtaining their assistance.  That is all that the Chairman has done.

	It seems to us that, notwithstanding the most unhappy illness of Mr Hanlon, there is no conceivable ground upon which we could overrule the Chairman’s decision to hold an Interlocutory Hearing.  If the result of that hearing is unsatisfactory and as a result Mr Hanlon suffers, or says he suffers, prejudice, and he is unable to conduct his case in the way that he wishes to, then that may well be a cause of complaint in due course; a matter of which he could properly complain by way of an appeal.  It may be that he would be very well advised, whatever the results of the Interlocutory Hearing, to wait until the matter is finally disposed of; because Interlocutory Appeals are extremely difficult to bring and may cause much more delay and expense than they are worth.  That of course is a matter for Mr Hanlon and his wife.

	What we cannot say at the moment is that this appeal can possibly succeed.  There is no possible ground for interfering with the decision of the Chairman to hold his Interlocutory Hearing.  We hope that Mrs Hanlon will attend, whether with or without any help from her husband, and will tell the Chairman all that she wishes to about the case and will hear from the Chairman everything that he wishes to say about the case.  No doubt the same courtesy will be extended to the Respondents and it will be a highly useful occasion if that happens.  For the moment, all we have to say is that the appeal must be dismissed.