[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Bracewell v Securicor Guarding Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1308 (31 July 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1308.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1308

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
(MR RECORDER BURKE QC)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday, 31st July 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE PILL: This is an application for permission to appeal brought by Mr Bracewell who seeks to appeal a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal dated 26th March 2001. That tribunal at a preliminary hearing dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Employment Tribunal at London South, reasons sent to the parties on 20th September 2000, striking out a claim which the applicant had brought. The unanimous decision of the Employment Tribunal was "The tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear a personal injury claim. Accordingly, the application is struck out.".
2. The applicant was employed by Securicor Guarding Limited beginning in 1993 or 1994 as a security guard. He says that in the course of his duties when working at the British Library site near St Pancras Station, he fell and injured his left knee. His employment was terminated on 11th November 1997, and he has produced to me a transcript of an interview in which the regional manager stated, "When you said you would like a sitting down job which we cannot find you. Therefore I am terminating your employment on medical grounds with immediate effect. We will pay you one week in lieu of notice".
3. There were proceedings on the grounds of wrongful and unfair dismissal. These were subject of a settlement carried out through the ACAS conciliation procedure. The settlement was included in a document signed by the parties dated June 1998 and the applicant accepted the sum of £750. Thereafter, he sought to bring a claim to recover damages for the injury to his left knee, and it was that claim which the Employment Tribunal decided it had no jurisdiction to hear and struck out.
4. The decision of the Appeal Tribunal is comprehensive. I agree with the reasoning of Mr Recorder Burke QC who was presiding and could not and do not attempt to put it any better way myself. Mr Bracewell has submitted a skeleton argument this morning, which I have read, as to his injury in March of 1995. It refers to a disability in his right knee and he has produced medical records from two doctors, including Dr Peter Wheeler dated 31st of October 1997, and I have no difficulty in accepting for present purposes the contents of those reports.
5. The applicant's difficulty is that under the system of law in this country, in which he rightly claims pride, the procedure for personal injury claims is that they are heard in the ordinary courts and not in employment tribunals. Employment tribunals were set up some years ago to deal with specific matters such as unfair dismissal and racial and sexual discrimination. Their powers do not include powers to resolve personal injury claims. Those claims are heard in the ordinary court.
6. The applicant has movingly addressed the Court stating that he has not broken any rules, there is nothing against him. He worked hard for his employers. They have infringed his rights when he became ill as a result of the accident. He should now be given consideration for the efforts he made for his employers, and this Court should intervene on his behalf to ensure that the Employment Tribunal hears his claim for personal injuries and the pain and discomfort which he has suffered as a result of the 1995 accident.
7. I have put it to the applicant as plainly as I can that the Employment Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction which it stated it did not have. The applicant responds by saying that it is in the book, and in his skeleton argument he has referred to a number of Acts of Parliament and to the Convention on Human Rights. He refers to his excellent personal record and to the large sum which he says would be due to him upon a personal injury claim.
8. For the reasons given by the Employment Tribunal and on appeal by the Employment Appeal Tribunal my judgment is that this application is doomed to failure. I do not find any arguable case for this Court to intervene. I express that this will cast no criticism on him and has not cast any doubt upon the service he did for his employers or for the disability under which he has subsequently laboured. For the reasons I have given, this application must be refused.
(Application for permission to appeal refused)