Appeal No.EAT/840/02/MAA

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 18 October 2002

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J McMULLEN QC
MR D NORMAN
MRS R A VICKERS

MISS K CORCORAN	APPELLANT

HARRISON INGRAM	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR A ELESINNLA
(of Counsel)
Instructed By:
Quantum Employment
Law Consultants
45 Laleham Road
London SE6 2HS	

JUDGE J McMULLEN QC:

1	In an Originating Application presented on 26 April 2002 the Applicant complained of unfair dismissal.  A Notice of Appearance was entered on 24 May 2002.  An application to amend the Originating Application was made on 11 July 2002, together with the amendment itself.

2	The hearing in this case was listed for 12 August at London South.  On 2 August 2002 the Chairman refused the application to amend, saying this:

“Whilst it is appreciated that the Applicant mentioned pregnancy in her Originating Application, there is no indication of an unfair dismissal on grounds of pregnancy as the particulars attempt to show that there was no redundancy.
The Chairman … considers that if the application to amend had been made with considerably more notice, it may well have been granted.  However in view of the imminence of the hearing date, the request to amend is refused.”

3	I have been told that the hearing did take place on 12 August but at the conclusion of the submissions the Tribunal indicated that it wished to join a Second Respondent, the other partner in the association, and thus the case has either been adjourned or in some way or another reorganised and will take place at a date in the future.

4	As Mr Elesinnla, who represented the Applicant here and there, points out, fairness would not allow the joining of the Second Respondent so late in the proceedings and effectively the Tribunal will be invited by the Second Respondent to start again.

5	The criticism made on appeal is that the Chairman did not consider the factors in British Coal Corporation v Keeble [1997] IRLR 336 and Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836.  There is certainly no indication in his letter of any matter considered by him except the form of claim made by the Applicant and the imminence of the hearing date.  As to the former, the sole objection taken to it is timeliness since, as we know the hearing date is not now imminent, and since the Chairman said he may well have granted the application, it seems to me that there is a reasonable prospect of the decision being overturned.  Regrettably the only course open to me is to pass this to a full hearing which I will list again for a judge alone, pursuant to Section 28(4) Employment Rights Act 1996.  I will expedite it and then, in due course, if the judge decides that the Chairman’s decision should be set aside, then the application can go ahead with the two Respondents before a Tribunal at a date which will now be a long time in the future.  This is to be listed as Category C with a time estimate of half an hour.  Skeleton argument of the Applicant 21 days before the hearing and of the Respondent 14 days before the hearing.