Appeal No.	EAT/0263/00
		EAT/0323/00			EAT/0389/00			EAT/0390/00			EAT/0428/00			EAT/0543/00			EAT/0544/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 7 June 2001

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT) 
(AS IN CHAMBERS)

MR T P CROOK	APPELLANT

ROYAL AIR FORCE	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

MEETING FOR DIRECTIONS

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR T P CROOK
(The Appellant in Person)	
For the Respondent	MR R COLEMAN
(of Counsel)
Ms J Faulkner
The Treasury Solicitor
Queen Ann's Chambers
28 Broadway
London
SW1 9JS	

MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT)

1	I have before me for directions the matter Mr T P Crook v Royal Air Force.  There are 7 appeals and in some of them it is not the Royal Air Force that is the Respondent but the Ministry of Defence.  Of those 7 appeals, all relate, in one way or another, to one or other or both of 2 IT1s which Mr Crook has lodged.  

2	On 6 September 1999, an IT1 was lodged which was given a number that ended 2290/99, by which Mr Crook claimed for what he called harassment against, at that stage, only one Respondent, Group Captain J D Bullen.  I am bound to say on reading that IT1 that it was far from clear what jurisdiction was being invoked.  That led to an IT3 from the Respondent on  
12 October 1999.  Harassment was denied and the right was reserved to add to the Respondent’s defence once more particulars were given, as was obviously going to be necessary.  On  
1 December 1999, Group Captain Bullen was dismissed as a Respondent and the Ministry of Defence was substituted.  Orders were made for further and better particulars of the claim and for inspection and so on.  

3	On 9 December 1999 a second IT1, which was given a number ending 3160/99, was lodged by Mr Crook.  It claimed a detriment that he said he had suffered by reason of his having lodged the earlier IT1, 2290/99.  He claimed that he had been dismissed from employment following protected disclosures, disclosures protected under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.  He also sought interim relief.  On 20 January 2000 there was an IT3 responding to the IT1 3160/99.  

4	I will not begin to attempt to set out all the various Interlocutory stages and the steps taken but on 16 February 2000 notice was given by the Employment Tribunal to both parties of an application that both IT1s should be struck out.  That notice of hearing was for a hearing on  13 March 2000.  It appears to be a motion made by the Employment Tribunal of its own motion under Rule 31(2)(e).  That led to an order of 24 March 2000, following a hearing which, indeed, took place on 13 March.  That order was:

“The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that the Originating Applications [and both 2290/99 and 3160/99 were identified] are struck out and the claims are dismissed.

5	There appears, so far as the papers at the EAT are concerned and so far as the knowledge of the Respondent (which appears today by Mr Coleman) is concerned, no appeal against that striking out.  Mr Crook tells me that although he has brought over 3,000 documents to Court this morning, he has not brought such a Notice of Appeal or a copy of such a Notice of Appeal.  I think I have to proceed on the footing that the EAT has got it right and that the Respondents, by Mr Coleman, are not wrong, and that there is no appeal against the striking out itself.  If that is the case then a lot of the other 7 appeals that are before me this morning stand to be rendered nugatory because they all are concerned with, and depend upon, the subsistence of the 2 IT1s.  If the IT1s have been struck out the other matters such as, for example, whether there should be discovery in relation to this or that IT1, whether there should be interim relief under this or that IT1 and so on, would be swept away.  There is however, one Notice of Appeal that could – and I emphasise the word could - introduce the possibility of the striking out being undermined.  That is the appeal that ends with the number 428/00, by which Mr Crook complains of the Employment Tribunal’s failure to review the striking out of the 24 March.  

6	It seems to me that the appropriate course today, and I have put this to both parties, is first of all, not to treat today as a substantive hearing of any appeal, because that, as it seems to me, would be unfair, because Mr Crook was brought here under papers that say ‘Meeting for Directions’ and to turn today into a substantive hearing would seem to me to be grossly unfair.  Rather the proper course is to adjourn all Notices of Appeal generally except for 428/00.  All those other ones can be restored if necessary, depending on the outcome of 428/00.  

7	428/00, being concerned solely with whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in failing to allow a review of the striking out order, should be a relatively limited hearing and I see no need for any particular directions in relation to that hearing, save for the conventional ones that, not less than 14 days before the date of the hearing, skeleton arguments should be exchanged between the parties.  I estimate the hearing of 428/00 as not likely to exceed 1½ hours.  It is to be given as early a hearing date as practicable and all other appeals (that is the other 6, which end up 263/00, 323/00, 389/00, 390/00, 543/00 and 544/00) are adjourned generally to be restored, if appropriate, only after the conclusion of 428/00.  

8	I do not think there are any other directions which need to be given today, but I shall just pause to ask Mr Crook and Mr Coleman if there are any particular directions that are needed, simply in relation to the hearing of 428/00.  

Mr Crook, have you any particular directions you wish to add as to 428/00?

I still think I prefer a ….[inaudible]…. Disclosure from the Respondent relative to this case, I am certain I received it.

I do not think there is any need for discovery or disclosure or inspection in relation simply to 428/00, which is concerned only with the manner of conduct of proceedings.  So I do not make any order of that kind.  I should have said that 428/00, when it comes back to the EAT, is to be treated as a Full Hearing.  That is not to say that I have already identified any arguable error of law in the Tribunal’s decision but simply that, having put the matter to Mr Coleman, he does not resist it coming back as a Full Hearing and it would be appropriate that the EAT should have the assistance of the Respondent at the Full Hearing.

Mr Coleman, have you any other directions that need to be given?

No I don’t Sir.