Appeal No.	 EAT/415/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 24 May 1999

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MRS T A MARSLAND
MR J A SCOULLER

MR M HANMAN	APPELLANT

HOME OFFICE - PRISON DEPARTMENT	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

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

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):	This is an Appeal against an Order of a Tribunal contained in a letter dated 24th February 1999.  The letter reads:

“Further to my letter dated 19th February 1999, your letter of 15th February 1999 has been referred to the Regional Chairman of Employment Tribunals who has directed as follows:
	“Mr Hanman’s case is not different from the other cases.  The difference of “label” does not render the facts to be determined in all the cases sufficiently disparate to separate his claim from the others.””

1	Mr Hanman, therefore, is unable to have his claim which he has brought against the Prison Service Agency heard and determined.  The position is, as we understand it, that a very large number of members of the Prison Service brought a complaint in the Leeds Tribunal, evidence being given over a 5-day period from 26th August to 4th September 1997.  The Tribunal records, in its decision, that there were six test cases, although there appears to be only five applicants and treated them as being test cases.  We are not at all sure whether they were test cases in relation to Mr Hanman’s case and we need some further information about it.  Doubt stems partly from the fact that on 15th October 1997, which was after the fifth day of the Hearing and after the Leeds decision had been sent to the parties, Mr Hanman received a letter saying:

“A Chairman of Industrial Tribunals has directed me to inform you that although you are represented in presenting your claim, it is identical in content to the other  532 claims locally brought by Prison Officers.  It will therefore be consolidated with the others.”

2	Again, we do not know whether the 532 claims that his claim has been consolidated with are yet to be heard and determined or whether they form part of the group of people who had a test case decided at the Leeds Tribunal.  In these circumstances, we do not quite know how to proceed with this Appeal, save that we are not sufficiently informed about it to enable us to reach any conclusion on this Preliminary Hearing.  Mr Hanman has not appeared before us as is his right and as was indicated.  It seems to us that what he could most helpfully do in the light of the Judgment which he will receive is to swear an Affidavit within a reasonable time hereafter, say 21 days, setting out precisely what his understanding is in relation to his complaint, and what its relationship is with the 532 claims and what its relationship is with the test cases which have been heard and determined by the Leeds Tribunal, and any further information which he is able to give us in support of the Appeal which he wishes to make against the Tribunal saying, in effect, that he has had his day in Court, albeit, vicariously.  That is what he can usefully do for us.  

3	We will therefore adjourn this Preliminary Hearing until he has provided us with this further information.  I direct that he provides it within 21 days of the date of this Order.  If he does not do so, then I will take the view that he does not wish to pursue his Appeal and it will be dismissed.  If he does provide this information, then in the light of it the matter will be relisted for a Preliminary Hearing so that the case can then be considered properly.