[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Olok v. Capita Business Services Ltd [2001] UKEAT 0497_01_0410 (4 October 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0497_01_0410.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 497_1_410, [2001] UKEAT 0497_01_0410

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant Being neither present Nor represented	DR A ADOKO African Advocacy Foundation Free Legal Assistance 10 Soane House Ronald Way London SE17 2JF


 


JUDGE WAKEFIELD

1. This is an Ex Parte Preliminary Hearing of an appeal by Ms D Olok against a refusal by a Chairman at London South Employment Tribunal, to review a decision made on 23 January 2001. The original decision was in the following terms:

"The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that terms of settlement having been agreed this Originating Application is dismissed on withdrawal by the Applicant."

Neither party had appeared before the Tribunal on the day of the hearing, 15 January 2001.

2. The summary reasons were as follows:

"1. By an Originating Application presented on 26 September 2000 the Applicant complained of race discrimination and wrongful dismissal.

2. This case was listed to be heard on 15 January 2001. The Tribunal was notified by ACAS that the parties had agreed a settlement. The parties did not appear at the hearing. That being so, the unanimous decision of the Employment Tribunal was that this Originating Application be dismissed on withdrawal by the Applicant, terms of settlement having been agreed."

3. The Applicant then applied for a review of that decision and the application for review states amongst other things that there was "an error of fact on the face of the record". It was also said that there "was an error of law on the face on the record based on the false premise that the Applicant had withdrawn her application." The dismissal of the application was said to be "unjust in that it denied the parties six safeguards" which are then listed including that it violated almost all known laws and precedents. The Human Rights Act is cited.
4. That request for a review was the subject first of all of an enquiry by a letter from the Tribunal as to the precise meaning of the application but ultimately it appears that the review was refused by a letter dated 22 March 2001 which is in the following terms:

"The Chairman asked that I explain to you that:

The letter of the law does not dictate that the consent agreement becomes the consent order of the Tribunal. This can only be effected if both parties agree in writing.

The fact that an agreement has been made through ACAS is reflected in paragraph two of the Tribunal's reasons.

It would appear that no useful purpose would be served by agreeing a consent because the Applicant already has a binding agreement which sets out all of the terms of settlement."

5. There is no dispute that the parties to the Originating Application had entered into an agreement under the aegis of ACAS on 18 January 2001. That being so the Originating Application could not proceed. There can therefore be no reasonable or practical objection to the Chairman expressing the decision in terms of the Applicant having withdrawn the application. Either expressly or by implication she had done so. The appeal has no reasonable prospect of success and is dismissed.