Appeal No. EAT/1236/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 6 December 2001

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
LORD DAVIES OF COITY CBE
MISS C HOLROYD

MR F MAQBOOL	APPELLANT

THE CHIEF CONSTABLE WEST YORKSHIRE POLICE	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING 

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	Mr A Cullen
Messrs Andrew Cullen & Associates
Beechfield Cottage
Chapel Lane
Partington
Manchester M31 4EZ	

JUDGE D M LEVY QC

1	This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mr Maqbool, (“the Appellant”) who started proceedings by an Originating Application dated 16 August 2000, claiming race discrimination and unfair practice, contrary to the Race Relations Act.  The Respondent was the Chief Constable West Yorkshire Police.  

2	There was a first directions hearing at Leeds on 29 October 2000 when the Appellant was ordered to file a properly pleaded case.  That had apparently not been done by 27 March 2001 when there was a directions hearing at Leeds held before a Chairman sitting alone.  Then, as now, the Appellant was represented by Mr Cullen, an Employment Law Consultant. It is quite apparent from the Order for Directions given that the Tribunal ordered that the Appellant was ordered, within fourteen days, to file a fully pleaded case in respect of complaints set out in paragraph 1 of the October Decision.  That he failed to do.  Mr Cullen applied for more time to comply. 

3	Ultimately no truly pleaded case was lodged before there was a hearing before the Employment Tribunal on 6 August. Then the Tribunal decided that the Originating Application should be struck out in its entirety and ordered that the Appellant pay £600 being a proportion of the Respondent’s costs including Value Added Tax.  The Extended Reasons show why that Order was made.  It was because there had been a failure by the Appellant, through his representatives, to file a sufficiently pleaded statement by that day.  In paragraph 7 of the Extended Reasons, which were promulgated on 30 August 2001, the Chairman stated that:
“The Respondent cannot receive a fair trial today because he does not know which case he has to meet.”

4	It is from that Decision that this appeal is made and the grounds for the Decision are that the case was not fully heard and subsequently the interests of justice were not served.  Subsequent to the Decision, the Appellant applied for a review.  

“This application was refused, on the grounds that the chairman saw little prospect of success. The appellant therefore seeks leave from the Employment Appeal Tribunal that in the event they find in his favour, a differently constituted Tribunal hears his case.” 

5	The rest of the Notice of Appeal seems to set out what happened below and it suggests that the Order of 27 March was complied with, it seeks leave to appeal from the Order as to costs.  We have examined the Order of 27 March with Mr Cullen and have reached a clear decision that the Appellant had not complied with the Order. 

6	In our view the Tribunal, on the evidence before it, was absolutely entitled to come to the Decision which it came, and the discretion which it exercised on costs is one which we cannot fault.  It is most unfortunate for the Appellant that he has not had a full hearing of his complaint, but if the directions of a Tribunal are not complied with by a party a sanction of the Tribunal when that party is a claimant is to dismiss the claim.  In our judgment the course taken by the Tribunal was well justified.

In the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal at this stage.