Appeal No.	 PA/429/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 16 January 2001

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT) 
(AS IN CHAMBERS)

MR MAURICE LOGAN-SALTON	APPELLANT

CALDERDALE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

APPEAL FROM THE REGISTRAR’S ORDER

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON	
For the Respondents	MISS D KAZI
(of Counsel)
Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council
Law and Administration Department
Crossley House
Halifax
HX1 1UG	

	MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT):		With some reluctance, because one would have liked to have gone ahead with it, today I think it is appropriate that the matter should be adjourned. 

1.	I stand it over, first of all, for Calderdale to put in evidence, if they so are advised, as to such, if any, prejudice, as they claim to suffer that cannot be made good by way of an order for costs against Mr Logan-Salton. In particular evidence will be desirable if they wish to claim that there are now unavailable witnesses or records that would have been available for a hearing had the hearing taken place in, let us say, late 1999. That is a matter which needs to be put in evidence as is any other evidence on which Calderdale would rely to indicate substantial prejudice from the passage of time in this matter. Also, any evidence on which they would wish to rely to suggest that a fair trial of the issues is no longer possible. That is one category of evidence on which Calderdale will be able to put in evidence and opportunity will there be given to Mr Logan-Salton to answer it. 

2.	Another matter that seems unclear to me at the moment is the identification of what particular shortcomings the Employment Tribunal had in mind on 24th June 1999 when the IT1 was struck out under Rule 13(2)(f) for want of prosecution and for failure to answer correspondence. Both sides can put in evidence as to what it was that the tribunal had or had not in mind, deriving, presumably, from whatever submissions were put to the tribunal. There is reference in the papers to a letter of 14th June which in terms refers to a letter of 11th May 1999 to which the tribunal says Mr Logan-Salton had failed to respond. But what the letter of 11th May says I know not because it is not in the papers. The second category of evidence is thus what shortcomings, if any, subsisted as at the 24th June 1999 to justify the tribunal’s view that there had been want of prosecution and a failure to answer correspondence.

3.	A third matter, which might be capable of being dealt with in evidence, is whether or not the order of 24th June 1999, when sent out to the parties, was accompanied, as is usually the case, by a booklet explaining how appeals are to be made, namely, to the EAT and within what period, namely, 42 days from the dissemination of the basic judgment. Calderdale notes in the correspondence that the order was accompanied. It may be that Calderdale got a copy that was accompanied by the booklet; whether Mr Logan-Salton or his advisers received a copy accompanied by the booklet may be another matter. It may be a matter that needs to be taken up with the Employment Tribunal itself; had they sent out a booklet in the copy sent to Mr Logan-Salton or to his advisers? That is a matter which may be usefully dealt with in evidence. 

4.	Those are three broad subjects which seem to me need to be covered. I by no means limit the parties to those subjects if other subjects transpire to be of relevance. But, so far as concerns time for evidence, Calderdale is to file the evidence first and they are to have 35 days from today in which to swear and file evidence on such subjects as they see as appropriate. Mr Logan-Salton then has 14 days to answer that and Calderdale 14 days to reply. Unless there are other directions that I can give today, I will merely adjourn the matter generally for it to be restored after the evidence has been filed in accordance with that timetable.