BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Bell v Lancaster City Council [1999] UKEAT 1380_98_2903 (29 March 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1380_98_2903.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1380_98_2903 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR A C BLYGHTON
MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE
| For the Appellant | THE APPELLANT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED |
JUDGE LEVY QC: This is a preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mr Bell against two decisions of an Employment Tribunal sitting in Manchester. The first is against a decision made on 30th August 1998 and sent to the parties on 19th August 1998, when Mr Bell, not having attended at the hearing, the tribunal made a unanimous decision that his application was to be dismissed on withdrawal. The tribunal also ordered that Mr Bell was to pay the sum of £200 towards the respondents' costs. Mr Bell had not attended on that day because of a mistake by him as to the date of hearing. Therefore, the order for costs was made in his absence without him having the opportunity to be heard.
Mr Bell then asked for a review of the decision by letter dated 22nd August 1998. The Chairman, sitting alone, reviewed his decision, and for the reason he gave, he refused to review it. The Chairman set out in the extended reasons rule 11(1) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 1993, which provides, inter alia, that the tribunal can only review its decision on one or more grounds. One of the grounds was "the decision was made in the absence of a party". The Chairman seems to have decided that the only ground on which the appellant relied was another one, namely, that "the interests of justice require such a review". The Chairman upheld the decision of 19th August 1998, although it was made without giving the opportunity to Mr Bell to make oral submissions at all.
Mr Bell has written to this hearing today a letter dated 23rd March 1999 explaining his reasons for not attending. The Council has written a letter asking whether the Council could present its arguments on the appeal in writing. That would be a matter for a decision for a full appeal hearing, because we are satisfied that this matter must go to a full hearing. It may be that in the light of the matters and the amount at stake, the Council will wish to come to some arrangement with Mr Bell which will enable him to withdraw his appeal, but that is not a matter for us to decide. We will simply direct that this matter should go for a full hearing.
