Appeal No.	EAT/1327/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 7 June 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
LORD GLADWIN OF CLEE CBE JP
MRS R A VICKERS

MR S B BENNETT	APPELLANT

PUBLIC TRUST OFFICE	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR 
REPRESENTATION 
ON BEHALF OF 
THE APPELLANT	

JUDGE PETER CLARK:	This is the sixth Originating Application presented by the Appellant, Mr Bennett, arising out of his dismissal by the Respondent on 27th May 1988.  

1	The first complaint, presented in May 1988, was dismissed on withdrawal by the Appellant on 17th March 1989.  Against that decision he appealed out of time to this Tribunal.  His application to extend time was refused by the Registrar on 24th January 1990.  He appealed against the Registrar’s order to the then President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.  That appeal was dismissed on 11th June 1990 and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused.  

2	He presented his second Originating Application on 8th June 1992.  It came before a Tribunal on 12th February 1993 and the application was dismissed on the grounds that the Tribunal was functus officio.  That Tribunal also found that it was not a proper case on which to extend time for presentation of the complaint.  Against that decision, he appealed to this Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed by a division presided over by Mr Justice Knox on 11th October 1993.  

3	On 16th October 1993 he presented his third Originating Application.  That application was struck out by a Chairman of Tribunals at a hearing held on 29th March 1994.  

4	On 25th July 1994 he presented his fourth Originating Application complaining of unfair dismissal.  That application was struck out by the Tribunal on 23rd November 1994 on the grounds that it was frivolous or vexatious.  He applied for a review of that decision and that application was dismissed by a decision dated 11th January 1995.  

5	His fifth Originating Application, again complaining of unfair dismissal, was presented on 16th January 1995.  He raised precisely the same issues as before and the Tribunal struck out that application on 9th March 1995 under Rule 13(2)(e) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure.  

6	The present complaint was presented on 15th June 1998.  In his Originating Application he complains of unfair dismissal, loss of earning/living, refusal to give a reference to gain employment.  That application came before a Chairman, Mrs J Hill, sitting at London North.  By a decision dated 9th September 1998 the Chairman struck out the present application under Rule 13(2)(e) of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure on the grounds that it was frivolous and vexatious.  In reaching that decision, she took into account representations made by the Appellant by letter dated 10th August 1998 in which he contended that he had originally withdrawn his first application as a result of the Treasury Solicitors bribing an officer of ACAS, Mr Webb, to give false information.  It is against that decision that this appeal is brought.  

7	By a letter dated 4th June 1999, the Appellant has asked for a postponement of today’s preliminary hearing on the grounds that his elderly mother, whom he cares for, is unwell following hospital treatment.  Whilst we are sympathetic to his domestic obligations, we have to take into account the history of this matter.  It is absolutely plain from the procedural background that the present proceedings, and in particular, this appeal are an abuse of the process.  We have no doubt that if he had a complaint about the circumstances in which he came to withdraw his first application in March 1989, that complaint was fully ventilated in the course of his succeeding second, third, fourth and fifth complaints.  

8	There are no grounds for reopening the circumstances in which he came to withdraw his complaint ten years ago.  In these circumstances we are quite satisfied that the Chairman was right to strike out the present complaint.  There is no arguable point of law raised in the Notice of Appeal and accordingly we shall dismiss the appeal.