Appeal No. EAT/1243/95

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 4 November 1996

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MR P DAWSON OBE
MR P A L PARKER CBE

MR T F BROWN	APPELLANT

LONDON CENTRAL BUS CO LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR CLARK
(of Counsel)
E.L.A.A.S.	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):   The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether Mr Thomas Frederick Brown has an arguable point of law to support an appeal against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at London (South) over 11 days. In that decision an order for costs was made against him.

	The short an important point that is raised by him against that order for costs, is that before it was made and contrary to the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal as long ago as 1981 in the case of Jenkins, the tribunal failed to take into account Mr Brown’s ability to meet any order for costs. It is said that there was no enquiry as to his means.

	If that contention is correct, and we have no reason to doubt it, then the order of this tribunal at the hearing of a full appeal would be to remit the matter back to the Industrial Tribunal so that they could consider the question of Mr Brown’s capacity to meet any order for costs. 

	But the purpose, as I have said of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law fit to go before a full tribunal of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. We are satisfied that it does raise such a point of law. However, we express the hope that in light of what we have said, the parties will be able to reach agreement as to how this matter should now proceed. If they are unable to settle the whole claim for costs between themselves, then without finally determining the matter, we are of the view that it is likely that any hearing of this appeal will result in the matter being remitted to the Industrial Tribunal for their further consideration, and it may well be that when the respondents to this appeal have had an opportunity to consider the matter, if they cannot settle the question of costs they might at least agree that the way to proceed from now is to agree to remit the matter back without the need for any formal appeal hearing. On that basis we think that this matter should go ahead.