[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Koskinen v. The Council for Professions Supplementary To Medicine & Ors [2001] UKEAT 1447_00_3003 (30 March 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1447_00_3003.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 1447__3003, [2001] UKEAT 1447_00_3003

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR T KIBLING (of Counsel) Messrs Hodge Jones & Allen Solicitors Twyman House 31-39 Camden Road London NW1 9LR


 


MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC

1. We have before us by way of Preliminary Hearing an appeal against a decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at London South, extended reasons for which were promulgated on 10 October 2000. There was a subsequent application for a review. That was refused on a date after the appeal had already been lodged with this Tribunal.
2. Mr Kibling, who represents the Appellant, began by applying for an adjournment of this Preliminary Hearing. His client is currently in Finland. It appears that Mr Kibling's solicitors had been granted legal aid to advise on the merits of the appeal and had duly instructed him but he has not as yet delivered a written advice because events overtook him. The case was listed rather earlier than he had hoped. The solicitors knew on 20 March and told the Appellant on 21 March and had subsequent contact with him by telephone and fax. In that fax, which has been read to us, the Appellant said, in a central sentence:

"If there is something horribly unclear please try to postpone the hearing."

That sentence indicates that although he proposed not to be present himself, he was happy for the hearing to go ahead unless something fell within the description 'horribly unclear'. He had a pre-arranged trip to Finland in order, it appears, to assist in the clearing out and disposal of goods from his mother's home and, it may be, to be present at a possession hearing in respect of the house. Plainly he is in genuine difficulty.

3. The problem which Mr Kibling has in representing him, is that his skeleton argument seeks to make a lawyer's sense of a layman's approach to the issues. The layman is plainly an able and eloquent man but he is Finnish and therefore may lack the natural facility with English that someone who has spent a long time in England and has been raised here would otherwise have. Conscious of this, Mr Kibling wished to make sure that the Appellant was content with the skeleton argument. He has been unable to do so.
4. We have not seen in either the Notice of Appeal or the skeleton argument something which appears to us to be 'horribly unclear'. Mr Koskinen is represented. This is a Preliminary Hearing which would not determine his rights unless it seemed to us that there was no arguable case for them. Despite the difficulties to which Mr Kibling adverted, we have determined to proceed to hear the case.
5. In the event we think that there an arguable case to hear. In particular, focusing upon the approach which the Employment Tribunal took, this may have been by reference to an inappropriate section of statute, and not in response to the section to which the Appellant sought to direct them. We think that grounds in the Notice of Appeal from 6.2 – 6.4 and 6.9 are arguable. We do not consider that any other ground of appeal, save one, is arguable and we note with relief that Mr Kibling does not seek to persuade us otherwise. That ground is an additional ground for which Mr Kibling has sought leave, which in principle we shall give to him, which is to amend the Notice of Appeal by adding a ground dealing with the arguments that there may be in respect of the Employment Tribunal's decision that the application was out of time and its apparent lack of consideration as to whether, in the circumstances, that time might be extended. That amended Notice of Appeal is to be supplied within seven days of today.
6. Finally, we see no arguable case against the third Respondent. Mr Kibling, with commendable frankness, confesses that neither does he and again we are reassured in the decision to which we have come that the case insofar as it relates to the Department of Trade & Industry must be dismissed. Permission to appeal the dismissal of any of the grounds and the case against the Department of Trade & Industry is refused. The case will be set down for a day, category B. Skeleton arguments focusing upon those grounds in the amended Notice of Appeal only, to be supplied fourteen days or more prior to the hearing, together with copies of any authorities to be relied upon including a copy of the statutory provisions which are relevant.