[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Bigmore v John Dickinson Stationery Ltd [1999] UKEAT 1427_98_2106 (21 June 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1427_98_2106.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1427_98_2106

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	IN PERSON
For the Respondents	MS S MOOR (of Counsel) Messrs Eversheds Solicitors 10 Newhall Street Birmingham B3 3LX


 


MR JUSTICE CHARLES: This matter has come before us today. It is an appeal by a Mr Bigmore against John Dickinson Stationery Ltd concerning a decision by an Employment Tribunal, which dealt with a preliminary issue and concluded that the Appellant is not a disabled person within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act.

1. The matter was listed before us today at an interlocutory hearing. It seems that this occurred because, as indicated in the Extended Reasons by the Employment Tribunal, a claim for unfair dismissal was left outstanding. That application has now been adjourned. It is therefore not easy to see what the subject matter of any interlocutory hearing would have been. There has been some correspondence from the Respondent's Solicitors informing this Tribunal that there appeared to be no need for an interlocutory hearing. However, the matter did remain listed as an interlocutory hearing and no preliminary hearing has ever been set for this appeal.
2. Last week the President dealt with an application for an adjournment on paper. He refused that application. The application was founded upon a request by Mr Bigmore to have more time to obtain legal aid. He has had many months in which to obtain legal aid and we have expressed the view today that we are unsympathetic to any further adjournment based upon problems he may, or may not, have in respect of obtaining legal aid.
3. However, in the circumstances of the confusion over listing, and the doubt that that gives rise to as to whether, or not, the President addressed his mind to the question whether he was refusing an adjournment of an interlocutory hearing or a final hearing, we feel it is not appropriate for us to proceed with the full hearing today when Mr Bigmore is here in person.
4. In our judgment the fair course to adopt is for this matter to be listed by way of a preliminary hearing to come on before me in July. This will save the Respondents the time and cost of further appearance if, on that occasion, this Tribunal is persuaded there is no reasonably arguable point of law. If, on that occasion, this Tribunal is persuaded there is a reasonably arguable point of law, then naturally the appeal will proceed. But I should say now, to make it clear, that in the absence of some dramatic and significant change of circumstances, it is extremely unlikely that this Tribunal will grant an adjournment of the preliminary hearing on the basis of applications being made for legal aid.
5. So in those circumstances we will direct that this appeal comes before this Tribunal by way of preliminary hearing in July of this year.