[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Matthews v. The Key Computer Company [2001] UKEAT 957_00_2201 (22 January 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/957_00_2201.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 957_00_2201, [2001] UKEAT 957__2201

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

APPEARANCES

 

	MS L BROOKES (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


JUDGE COLLINS CBE

1. This is a rather unusual appeal. Mr Matthews, who lives in Australia, commenced proceedings against his employers on the ground that he had been unfairly dismissed. On 8 October 1999 the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim because the Appellant ordinarily worked outside Great Britain.
2. The Appellant appealed against that decision and, pending that appeal, an interlocutory hearing had been listed for 31 May, with a view to a further hearing taking place for three days beginning on 5 June. The Appellant travelled from Australia to this country for the interlocutory hearing on 31 May. The Tribunal held that the interlocutory hearing and the full hearing be postponed, pending the outcome of the appeal to this Tribunal.
3. The Appellant, it is clear from the correspondence, was outraged by that decision; he had travelled at his own expense to this country and desperately wanted something to be done about it. He has received no redress from the Tribunal or from the Department of Trade and Industry, and therefore he comes here, asking for what he sees as the requirement of justice to reimburse him for his out of pocket expenditure.
4. I have to say that it is not appropriate for us, in view of the limitations on our legal powers, to make any observations as to whether the Appellant's sense of grievance is justified or not, but the point is this: ultimately, in the Civil Courts, and for this purpose I include the system of Employment Tribunals, the question of listing is a judicial responsibility. On a day to day basis, listing matters are undertaken by Court staff and Tribunal staff, but that is on the ultimate direction of the Judiciary. In the Tribunal system, the Regional Chairmen will have the ultimate local responsibility of making listing decisions, in terms of general policy, and sometimes in individual cases of difficulty, which are referred to them by Tribunal staff. In cases which are already before a particular Tribunal with a Chairman and Members, listing decisions will be taken judicially by the Tribunal in the majority of cases.
5. The decision to adjourn the case on 31 May was a decision which was taken judicially by the Tribunal, and it is a commonplace of the English legal system that there is no right to claim damages, or wasted expenses as a result of judicial decisions, subject only to the question of whether or not there is a right to claim compensation for infringement of those rights which are enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, for which a specific right to claim damages in the Civil Courts arises. But so far as the Tribunal below is concerned, and so far as this Tribunal is concerned, there is simply no legal power to award wasted costs as a result of a judicial decision.
6. The matter was placed before the administrative staff of the Tribunals, who took the view, in our judgment - surely correctly - that as the decision to adjourn was a judicial decision, there was no place for an ex gratia administrative payment, so that, with regret, that the matter has taken this long for a clear ruling to be given to Mr Matthews and his sister, who has been looking after the matter on his behalf, we must dismiss this appeal as being wholly misconceived.