Appeal No. EAT/1095/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 2 October 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR P DAWSON OBE
MRS A GALLICO

MS P FINNEY	APPELLANT

COUNCIL FOR AWARDS IN CHILDREN'S CARE AND EDUCATION	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

INTERLOCUTORY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

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

JUDGE PETER CLARK

1	The position in this case is that the Applicant, Ms Finney, presented an Originating Application to the Bedford Employment Tribunal on 5 May 2000, complaining that she had been unfairly constructively dismissed by her former employer, the Respondent, Council for Awards in Children’s Care and Education.  The claim was resisted.

2	Initially, by letter dated 3 August 2000, the Tribunal listed the case for hearing on the  25 –27 September.  Thereafter, the Respondent successfully applied for a postponement of the hearing and the case was re-listed for 3 – 5 October.

3	The Applicant’s solicitors, Messrs Underwoods, then applied for a postponement of that hearing on the grounds that no fee earner within the firm was available to conduct Ms Finney’s case on the new dates.  That application was refused.  The matter was ultimately referred to the Regional Chairman, Mrs Tribe, who wrote to Underwoods on 23 August, pointing out that the Tribunal’s list could not revolve around Messrs Underwoods’ availability.  Against that order this appeal is brought.  

4	The Respondent made it clear that it did not intend to be present at the appeal hearing fixed for today.  Mr Marc Jones, solicitor advocate with Underwoods, lodged a skeleton argument in support of the appeal.

5	By a faxed letter dated 29 September 2000, Mr Jones has indicated that the Applicant’s underlying claim has now been settled.  He nevertheless asks us to adjudicate on this interlocutory appeal.  He has not appeared today in the interests of saving costs.  In that letter he seeks to add a further argument in support of the appeal, relying on the right to equality of arms inherent in the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention, today brought into force into English Law by the Human Rights Act 1998.  

6	We decline to rule on this appeal.  Exceptionally, where both parties persuade the Court that it is of importance to decide a point which is no longer strictly live in a case, the Court will entertain an academic point of law.  This case does not fall into that category, in our view.  Neither party is present to argue what are posited as points of general importance.  In these circumstances we shall simply make no order on the appeal, recording that the case has been compromised.