[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Wollen v. Schaffner EMC Ltd [2001] UKEAT 0938_01_1912 (19 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0938_01_1912.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 938_1_1912, [2001] UKEAT 0938_01_1912

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	APPELLANT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED


 


JUDGE D LEVY QC

1. Mr Wollen made an application to an Employment Tribunal alleging that he had been unfairly dismissed. His application included a number of documents but they appeared rather difficult to follow. After the Notice of Appearance had been received from the Respondent, the Employment Tribunal ordered the Appellant to give further and better particulars of his application.
2. In answer to the Order the Applicant sent to the Employment Tribunal a document which is at pages 10, 11 and 12 of our bundle. With those documents the Tribunal was also sent additional documents by the Appellant. The Tribunal nonetheless pursuant to Rule 4(7) of the 1993 Regulations struck out the application on the grounds that the Applicant had failed to comply with the Tribunal's Order dated 22 March 2001.
3. The Appellant sought a review of that decision and on 6 June 2001 that was considered by a Chairman. In paragraph 7 of his reasons he said:

"7. As regards the first ground there was no necessity for a hearing. Rule 4(7) of the 1993 Regulations empowers a Chairman to strike out an Originating Application before or at the hearing as long as notice is sent to the party giving him an opportunity to show cause why the Tribunal should not strike out the Originating Application. The Tribunal complied with that requirement by its letter to the Application of 10 May 2001.

8. The Applicant's other ground is that the interests of justice require a review. This particular ground of review generally only applies in exceptional circumstances where something has gone radically wrong with the procedure, involving a denial of natural justice of something of that order. It does not mean that in every case where a party is unsuccessful, he is automatically entitled to have the Tribunal review the case. Dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's decision is not a ground for review under Rule 11(1)(e). The Applicant has consistently failed to comply with the Tribunal' Order and the possibility of strike out had been canvassed on a number of occasions. Full Reasons for the Tribunal's decision were given with the Order of Strike Out."

The application for review was dismissed. We all consider that where there is a litigant in person who does not deal with a request for particulars in a way that a skilled or even an unskilled advocate who has some legal training might be expected to deal with it, that, in a forum which is meant to be for ordinary people with no legal skills, an Employment Tribunal should be slow to take offence to the point of striking out the application because particulars provided are deficient.

4. We think the 3 pages which we have identified which were sent to the Tribunal by the Appellant could arguably be said to have complied with the order for particulars which was made. In the circumstances we think this matter should go to a full hearing. Bearing in mind that Mr Wollen has not yet had his complaint tried, it is desirable that this appeal receives an expedited hearing.