[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Takodara v London Borough Of Brent [1999] UKEAT 981_98_0106 (1 June 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/981_98_0106.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 981_98_106, [1999] UKEAT 981_98_0106

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MRS J WAITHE (of Counsel) Instructed By: Shah Solicitors 168 Greenwood Road Harrow Middlesex HA1 3Q2
For the Respondents	MR C SAMEK (of Counsel) Instructed By: Messrs Kingsford Stacey Blackwell Solicitors 14 Old Square Lincolns Inn London WC2A 3UB


 


JUDGE CLARK: On 4 December 1998 this appeal was allowed to proceed to a full hearing by a division of this Tribunal presided over by Judge Pugsley on the basis of amended grounds of appeal then lodged by the Appellant, Mrs Takodora, who at the time was assisted by Mr Snelson under the ELAAS pro bono scheme. She had represented herself before the London North Employment Tribunal, against whose decision dismissing her complaints of race and sex discrimination and victimisation the appeal is brought.

1. We understand that two months ago the Appellant instructed solicitors Messrs Shah privately to prosecute her appeal. Three weeks ago those solicitors instructed Mr Waithe of Counsel. This morning he produced a Skeleton Argument for the Appeal Tribunal and his opponent, Mr Samek. Paragraph 8 of our Practice Direction requires service of Skeleton Arguments two weeks before the date fixed for the hearing. No list of authorities was submitted yesterday as required by paragraph 15 of the Practice Direction.
2. When the case was called on at 2.00pm it soon became clear that it was a necessary part of the Appellant's case in the appeal that we should see some of the documents that were in evidence before the Employment Tribunal. Mr Waithe, who is not attended by a representative from his instructing solicitors, proceeded to remove two copy letters from the bundle of documents contained within his brief.
3. Neither Mr Samek nor the Court were prepared to deal with the matter on that basis. No bundle of relevant documents had been lodged and a copy served on the Respondent in accordance with paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction. At that stage, Mr Waithe applied for an adjournment so that the case could be put in proper order. Mr Samek asked for the Respondent's costs thrown away. Mr Waithe then withdrew his application for an adjournment and assured us that, consistent with his overriding duty to his lay client, he could proceed with the appeal. We continued.
4. It then became apparent that he could not properly prosecute the appeal without reference to documentary exhibits which were before the Employment Tribunal. In these circumstances and on the specific instructions of the Appellant, he renewed his application for an adjournment. Mr Samek did not oppose the application provided that any adjournment was on terms as to the Respondent's costs thrown away.
5. We enquired whether we had power to order the Appellant's solicitors to pay the costs thrown away. We have not been satisfied that we do have that power. In these circumstances, in the interests of justice to both parties, we shall allow the adjournment. We direct that the Appellant pay the costs thrown away, making it quite clear that in our view those costs should be met by the Appellant's solicitors.
6. As to the future conduct of the appeal, we make the following directions. The matter will be relisted for one full day. I shall reserve it to myself. Meanwhile, the Appellant is to send a list of documents relied upon in this appeal to the Respondent's solicitors within 14 days of today. Within seven days thereafter, the Respondent's solicitor will provide a list of any further documents relied on the Respondent's side to the Appellant's solicitors.
7. Based on those two lists, the Appellant's solicitors will lodge the resulting bundle in triplicate with the Employment Appeal Tribunal within seven days thereafter. The bundle will be indexed and paginated; a copy of the index will be sent at the same time to the Respondent's solicitor. Any revised Skeleton Argument on either side is to be lodged with this Tribunal not more than 14 days before the resumed hearing, a copy of any such revised Skeleton Argument to be served on the other side timeously.
8. Any further applications in this matter should be directed to me.

Costs thrown away to be taxed if not agreed.