[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Bridgwater v. The Governing Body of John Gleed Boys School & Anor [2000] UKEAT 466_00_1011 (10 November 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/466_00_1011.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 466__1011, [2000] UKEAT 466_00_1011

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

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


JUDGE A WILKIE QC

1. This is an Interlocutory Appeal against a series of directions made by the Nottingham Employment Tribunal sitting on this occasion at the Boston County Court, on 18 February of this year. It is in the context of proceedings brought by Mrs Bridgewater against the Governing Body of John Gleed Boys School and Lincolnshire County Council: those proceedings were by way of a constructive dismissal claim.
2. It is clear from the record of the Tribunal's decision that there had been a number of previous interlocutory skirmishes in connection with Mrs Bridgewater's claim. At that hearing she was represented by a lay representative, Mr Butterfield. It is also a matter of record that the parties came to a settlement of the constructive dismissal claim on 19 July of this year and that pursuant to that, the Employment Tribunal, sitting in Nottingham, having been notified that the terms of settlement had been reached, ordered that all further proceedings in this application be stayed.
3. The appeal against the Interlocutory Orders had been launched on 23 March. There is correspondence between Lincolnshire County Council and this Tribunal and Mr Butterfield and this Tribunal, dated respectively 16 and 20 October of this year, in which each of them say that they do not intend to attend the hearing today, and indeed there is no appearance by either of them. It is clear from the terms of the Notice of Appeal that Mr Butterfield was, and apparently remains, significantly aggrieved by what he sees as the impropriety of the Chairman to him and his client's interests during the hearing of the interlocutory matter and in the decisions to which he came.
4. The proceedings having been stayed upon settlement, however, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction now to entertain this appeal, regardless of its merits or otherwise, and accordingly, we make no Order on the appeal. Should Mr Butterfield still feel that he wishes to take these matters further, he may do so, by way of furthering his complaint made in an administrative setting, to the Tribunal President, His Honour Judge John Prophet. There is reference to that matter in Mr Butterfield's letter. That is a procedure which is entirely separate from the Appellate procedure to this Tribunal. We have no role to play in respect of it, and we make no comment whatsoever on the merits, or otherwise, of Mr Butterfield's complaints against the Chairman of the Employment Tribunal. That would be a matter entirely for His Honour Judge Prophet to deal with in whatever way he sees fit. Therefore we make no Order on this appeal.