[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Brice v. North Somerset Council [2000] UKEAT 942_00_0812 (8 December 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/942_00_0812.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 942__812, [2000] UKEAT 942_00_0812

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	The Appellant in person


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC

1. This Appellant appears in person in these circumstances: by an application to an Employment Tribunal dated 28 February 2000, where there was a transfer of an undertaking in issue between him and his employer, the North Somerset Council ("the Respondent"), he complained that there was a failure to consult appropriate representatives and there was a failure to inform and consult regarding the transfer. The Respondent to his application took the point that the application had little chance of success, and made an application for the matter to be referred to an Employment Tribunal on a preliminary point for considering this, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 7(6) and Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations [1993].
2. On 5 June 2000 there was a hearing of the Respondent's application. The Chairman sitting alone considered the application and finding that the Appellant's complaint was unlikely to succeed, ordered that he pay a deposit in the amount of £75 not later than 21 days from receipt of the Order, as a condition of being permitted to take part in the proceedings.
3. From that Order, the Appellant appealed by Notice of Appeal, dated 25 June 2000. It was clear from reading his Notice of Appeal that what he was really seeking to do was argue about the merits of his application, not about the £75 which he had been ordered to pay as a condition of the matter continuing. This is the preliminary hearing of his appeal.
4. We have considered whether the decision of the Chairman was one which he could reasonably have made in the circumstances, and we have all come to the conclusion that on his findings, it was one that he could. In those circumstances we cannot interfere with it, and in those circumstances we dismiss this appeal at this stage.