[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 >> Towler v Henry Cooke Lumsden Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 1734 (15 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1734.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1734

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
APPLICATION OF APPELLANT FOR PERMISSION
TO APPEAL AND AN EXTENSION OF TIME

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Thursday, 15th November 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY: There are before the Court today two applications made by Mr Craig Towler in relation to proceedings brought by him against his former employers, Henry Cooke Lumsden plc, for unfair dismissal. The applications which Mr Towler makes in person are, first, that he should have permission to appeal against the refusal of the Employment Appeal Tribunal to review a decision which it gave on 19th December last year; and the second application, which is related to that, is that there should be granted an extension of time for appealing.
2. The brief background to the dispute is that Mr Towler was employed by Henry Cooke Lumsden plc for a long period, from July 1965 until he was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct at the end of September 1996. At the time of his dismissal he held the position of a senior investment executive. The circumstances of his dismissal led him to present to the Employment Tribunal a claim for unfair dismissal on 2nd December 1996. That was heard by the Employment Tribunal, which, in June 1999, dismissed the application, holding in the extended reasons sent by them to the parties that Mr Towler had not been unfairly dismissed.
3. Mr Towler appealed, and on 19th December last year the Appeal Tribunal allowed his appeal and ordered that the matter be remitted for rehearing by a different Employment Tribunal. It was then the turn of Henry Cooke Lumsden to appeal. In order to appeal they needed permission, which they were granted by this court on 6th June this year, on the basis that their appeal had a realistic prospect of success.
4. In the meantime, Mr Towler had applied to the Appeal Tribunal in April for review of its decision, but that was refused on 21st June 2001. It is against that decision which Mr Towler now wishes to have permission to appeal.
5. I have explained the position to Mr Towler and informed him that in the unusual circumstances which have arisen in this case, I consider that the most appropriate way of dealing with his application is neither to grant it nor to refuse it, but to adjourn it, so that it is listed for hearing at the same time as the appeal by Henry Cooke Lumsden. It seems to me that that will save time all round. The court which deals with Henry Cooke Lumsden's appeal will have to go into the history of Mr Towler's employment and dismissal and into the course that these proceedings have taken through the Employment Tribunal and the Appeal Tribunal; and, depending on the result of the appeal, it may be unnecessary to consider separately and in any further detail the application which Mr Towler makes in relation to the refusal of a review.
6. I have also explained to Mr Towler, though I have made it clear to him that I cannot give him advice on this matter, that the rules as to costs which apply on disposing of appeals in this court are not as favourable to those who lose appeals, as the rules as to costs which apply in the tribunals, the general rule there being that no order is made; the general rule here being that the winner of an appeal is entitled to the costs of his appeal against the losing side. I emphasise that that is only a general rule, to which there may be exceptions depending on the nature of the case and the result.
7. I have also explained to Mr Towler briefly that, although I cannot give him advice on this matter, as the appeal turns on questions of law and legal argument rather than evidence, it is advisable, if possible, to obtain representation. I am aware that Mr Towler has conducted the proceedings in the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal on his own, but I have given him some information as to sources from which he may seek advice and possibly representation. If he cannot obtain representation or prefers to represent himself on the appeal, he is of course as entitled to do that here, as he was in the tribunals.
8. So, for those reasons, I am adjourning these two applications; that is the permission to appeal application and the extension of time application. They should both be listed before the same court and at the same time as the appeal by Henry Cooke Lumsden, for which permission has already been granted.
9. Thank you very much. I would advise you to go to the Citizens Advice Bureau. There are people there with experience of dealing with those who are unrepresented. They also have experience of dealing with employment cases.
Order: Applications adjourned to be listed before the same court and at the same time as the appeal by Henry Cooke Lumsden plc. No order as to costs.