Appeal No.	 EAT/527/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 1 November 1999

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLLAND
MR J R CROSBY
MR D A C LAMBERT

MR R J TERRY	APPELLANT

HOYER (UK) LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	Mr P Hammond LL.B (Hons)
71 Moorlands Road
Fishponds
Bristol BS16 3LG	

MR JUSTICE HOLLAND:
1	This matter comes before us today by way of a preliminary hearing.  It is our task to decide whether a point of law rises in this matter such as merits adjournment to an inter-parties hearing, that is, to a hearing at which Hoyer (UK) Ltd can be represented.

2	We have had the considerable advantage this morning of having representation of Mr Terry as Appellant, by Mr Hammond.  We want to say at an early stage in this judgement that we are grateful to Mr Hammond for the way he has dealt with the matter, and for the level of moderation that he has achieved in putting forward a difficult case. 

3	The case that he has advanced delicately but firmly, is that the point of law arises by reason of the conduct of the proceedings under appeal, that conduct in its turn, reflecting bias on the part of the Chairman, that is, on the part of Mr Tickle who additionally is the Regional Chairman.  

4	In the event, Mr Hammond has persuaded us that this is a matter that we should adjourn for that inter-parties hearing.  It is right however that we should say what are the points that have served to underpin that decision.

5	First and foremost, we want to put it on record that presently we see no sign at all of any bias on the part of Mr Tickle.  That said, there are two matters which do concern us.  The first and foremost matter is this.  What happened on that day was the making of an unusual order, and that is an order for the striking out of Mr Terry’s originating application pursuant to Rule 13 Employment Tribunal (Constitution, Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993.  

6	It seems to us to be vital that this Tribunal should now see all the evidence that was put before the Employment Tribunal to achieve that drastic end.  We understand that evidence to be constituted by the correspondence which had passed between the parties, and which had been put by the respective parties before the Employment Tribunal.  We appreciate that that correspondence seemingly has some bulk, but it is manifest from the extended reasons that it played a major part in causing the Tribunal to arrive at that drastic decision.  

7	Thus our first reason for this adjournment is to allow that material to be put before this Tribunal and so that it can be established as to whether there was arguably a good basis for that drastic decision.  At the end of this judgment we will give directions with respect to achieving that end.  

8	Our second point arises out of paragraph 18 of the extended reasons.  In that paragraph the Tribunal explains how it approached this matter in the absence of Mr Hammond, the person who had been already identified as Mr Terry’s representative.  This morning, having heard Mr Hammond himself, and having seen a copy of the letter that he had personally written to the Tribunal dated 19 February 1999, we are concerned as to the exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion to deal with this drastic issue (that of striking out) in the absence of Mr Hammond, and furthermore, as we are told, to deal with it in preference to the issue then raised to whether there shouldn’t be an adjournment to accommodate Mr Hammond, he being unavailable to appear on that date nor indeed on a further date that was being canvassed, namely the 1 and 2 March.  Again, that issue can best be dealt with by a Tribunal that has the advantage of seeing all the correspondence in this matter.  

9	For those two reasons therefore, Mr Terry succeeds thus far this morning.  Turning to the directions that we give, we consider this to be a case that is likely to take a day.  Given the nature of the allegation that is being made we give a listing Category A, and we direct that it be put in the list for the President of this Tribunal.  

10	We further direct that there be prepared an agreed bundle of all the correspondence that we have identified, that is, all that bears upon this issue.  That agreement must be achieved at least 14 days before the inter-parties hearing. If there is any difficulty at all about achieving that agreement further application must be made to the President for directions.  We would emphasise the importance of co-operation on that issue between Mr Terry and the Respondents, and for our part, we envisage not the slightest difficulty in achieving that end.  It is in everybody’s interest to have a proper bundle, which bundle will have to be in chronological order and paged, so as to permit easy reference to the points that are respectively made by the parties.  

11	Finally there is the matter of skeleton arguments, they too will have to be exchanged between the parties, not later than 14 days before the hearing.  

12	Finally, we would respectfully draw Mr Terry’s attention to the assistance that has been given to him this morning by Mr Hammond.  We know not whether Mr Hammond would be available for the appeal, but it would be plainly in Mr Terry’s interest if he could find Mr Hammond, or some other similarly skilled representative to put his case forward to this Tribunal.