[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hirani v Dome Cosmetics Ltd [1999] UKEAT 1390_98_1810 (18 October 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1390_98_1810.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1390_98_1810

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

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


MR JUSTICE HOLLAND: This matter has been listed before us today by way of an adjourned preliminary hearing.

1. The matter originally came before this Tribunal differently constituted on 22 March 1999. This Tribunal gave certain directions. Those directions have been complied with, in the overall result the matter returns before us for a decision to be made as to whether it should be adjourned for an inter partes hearing or whether the appeal should be dismissed.
2. In the event this morning, Mr Hirani has been unable to attend through ill health but he has the advantage now of a careful reading of all the papers, including the fresh documentation by this Tribunal. We say, advantage, because our decision is that the matter should go forward now for an inter partes hearing.
3. The particular point that concerns us is the decision of the Tribunal below to deal with this matter by way of a Chairman sitting alone. It is entirely true that the Chairman did have jurisdiction to do so, but what concerns us is the exercise of discretion, more particularly when we see from the first paragraph of a letter of 20 May 1999, that that decision was based on an administrative convenience, namely a desire to take this case as a "floater".
4. We think that this is a matter that should be looked into by this Tribunal with the aid of submissions from both sides. Given that the result inevitably effects the interface between this Tribunal and the Tribunal below, it is our view that the matter should be reserved to a constitution headed by the President and we so direct. For the rest, we would suggest that this is a two-hour case and skeleton arguments should be exchanged 14 days before the hearing.
5. One further matter that the Tribunal will inevitably be concerned with, is the delay that has taken place since Mr Hirani sought to initiate his appeal. Plainly, that too is a matter particularly suited to a Tribunal headed by the President.