Appeal No.EAT/1016/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 28 January 2002

Before
MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC
MISS A MACKIE OBE 
MR D NORMAN

MRS A CHAPMAN	APPELLANT

MISS H J HUME	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	Mr N Chapman
(Representative)

MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC
1.	This case comes to us by way of Preliminary Hearing from a decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at Ashford.  Extended Reasons were promulgated on the 19 June 2001.  

2.	It seems to us that there is here an arguable point of law.  It is a short one.  The Tribunal reached the decision it did in the absence of the Respondent.  Rule 9 (3) of the 1993 Procedure Rules, provides that if a party fails to attend or to be represented the Tribunal may dispose of the application in the absence of that party, provided that, and this is the important proviso and I quote it in full,

“Before dismissing or disposing of any application in the absence of a party the Tribunal shall consider his Originating Application or Notice of Appearance, any representations in writing presented by him in pursuance of Rule 8 (5) and any written answer furnished to the Tribunal pursuant to Rule 4 (3)”

3.	We can see no obvious sign from the decision of the Tribunal that the Tribunal considered the contents of the Respondents Notice of Appearance, or, for that matter, any of the material put before them by the Respondent.  The case therefore seems to raise the issues whether or not the Tribunal was bound, so to do, in the circumstances of this case; whether, if they are bound so to do, they should have recorded that they had done so, and whether any failure to record that they had  done so in any way vitiates the decision to which the Tribunal came.

4.	We do not ourselves express any view as to what the ultimate resolution of those issues 
should be.  That will be for the Tribunal to determine, once it has heard from both the Appellant and the Respondent.

5.	Directions are that the case be listed in category C, with a time estimate of 2 hours. Skeleton arguments, which deal with the issue only to be filed no less than seven days prior to the hearing, together at the same time with photocopies of any cases upon which either party proposes to rely.