Appeal No.	 EAT/8/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 16 March 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR J C SHRIGLEY
MS B SWITZER

LONDON UNDERGROUND LIMITED	APPELLANT

MR M A SIMPSON	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MISS N JOFFE
(of Counsel)
Instructed By

MS F LOW
Secretary & Legal Director
London Transport Limited
55 Broadway
London SW1H OBD

	HIS HONOUR JUDGE LEVY QC:	A Chairman sitting alone on 28 October 1988 in London (North) held that an application by Mr M A Simpson had been presented in time.   Mr Simpson claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed by London Underground Ltd, “the Respondent”, by whom he had been employed from 3 October 1983 to 17 April 1998.  The Chairman at a preliminary hearing  so held, having heard evidence from him supported by way of affidavit, both from Mr Simpson and a colleague.  The affidavit in draft form had been presented to the Respondent shortly before the hearing, indeed only a day before the hearing, with solicitors for the Applicant forecasting that the Applicant would give evidence in accordance with that affidavit.  To save the costs of the Appellant attending the hearing, the solicitors acting for the Applicant sought from the Respondent agreement on the facts as stated in the Affidavit.  No such consent was given and the preliminary hearing was commenced at 3pm.  We understand that the parties were waiting at the Tribunal’s offices till then.  In the event the Applicant gave evidence in accordance with his affidavit and that of his colleague, and the Respondent brought no evidence to refute his evidence.

	At the end of the hearing, the solicitor acting for the Applicant sought costs on the basis that cross-examination was really unnecessary.  Such an application found favour with the Chairman, who awarded costs in the sum of £250 against the Respondent.  The Respondent does not appeal against the decision taken by the Chairman on the merits, but does appeal on the award of costs.  As this Tribunal has said on many occasions, it is up to a Tribunal to decide whether or not costs are awarded.  Clearly from the four corners of the decision, we are able to find that the Chairman found that the Respondent acted unreasonably in the circumstances which she set out and which we have summarised.  It may be that a different Chairman would have reached a different decision, but this in our judgment is a decision this Chairman was entitled to reach.  

	We have listened carefully to all that has been said by Miss Joffe on behalf of the Respondent, but we consider that this is an appeal without merit and should not go to a full hearing.  We dismiss it at this stage.  The Tribunal in our judgment was entitled to award costs in the circumstances of this case.