Appeal No. PA/0311/03 MA

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 19 August 2003

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J MCMULLEN QC
(AS IN CHAMBERS)

MR R TUCKETT	APPELLANT

OVUM LTD	RESPONDENT

DECISION ON THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

Revised

HIS HONOUR JUDGE J McMULLEN QC

1	By a letter of 19 September 2003 the Applicant applies for a review of the judgment I gave on 19 August 2003.  The basis for review is contained in EAT Rule 33 as being:

(a)	“the order was wrongly made as the result of an error on the part of the Tribunal or its staff;
(b)	a party did not receive proper notice of the proceedings leading to the order; or
(c)	the interests of justice require such review.”

2	The Applicant contends in what is described as “grounds for appeal/review” that I should set aside the decision I made.  Part of the application includes allegations of bias against the Employment Tribunal.  No such grounds were advanced before me in the appeal against the Tribunal’s decision.  There is no reason why they should not have been, in which case the appropriate procedure under the EAT Rules and Practice Direction 2002 would have been adopted.  This is not a sound basis for exercising my power of review.

3	There is also a criticism of my conduct of the proceedings.  Since I am directly mentioned and so is my background as having a lack of knowledge and understanding of mental illness and mental disability, and since a lecture I gave on human rights in March 2000 is also cited, it is appropriate that I respond.  I did not treat the Applicant or his case with disfavour or the Respondent with favour.

4	I was, since its foundation, a member of the Board of the DDA Representation and Advice Project and received disability awareness training.  I was, since its foundation, the legal adviser to the DRC and in particular attended all the meetings of its Legal Committee before my promotion to the bench.  I have received training by the JSB which included a lecture on the specific condition relied on by the Applicant.
5	As always, I announced the result of my judgment before I gave reasons.  At the end of my reasons I complimented the Applicant on his presentation.  Although this is not uncommon at the end of a judgment against a litigant in person, it was in this case by no means routine and I meant it.  They are similar to the words used by His Honour Judge Levy QC in Bruce v Cavalier and Thompsons Solicitors EAT/1283/00 (11 June 2002) (see page 4D) who said on behalf of the Tribunal:

8	“He is physically disabled and if we may respectfully do so, we pay tribute to the manner which, despite his disabilities, he presented his appeal to us.”

6	I do not consider that the Applicant’s application reaches the threshold of apparent bias set out in Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357, 494 para 103 per Lord Hope. 

7	Turning to the substance of the application, it appears to me that the Applicant is seeking once again to raise the issue of the report of Dr Morgan, Consultant Psychiatrist.  I knew that Mummery LJ had dismissed the Applicant’s application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judgment of the EAT on 14 June 2002, Mrs Recorder Cox QC presiding (as she then was).  The order was made on 8 August 2003 but the judgment has only just been shown to me.  It is quite clear that the Applicant canvassed the Morgan report before Mummery LJ and was unsuccessful.

8	It seems to me that there are no grounds for invoking the review jurisdiction of the EAT upon this matter and I refuse the application.