[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Valkova v. Benefit Agency Medical Services [2001] UKEAT 563_99_2401 (24 January 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/563_99_2401.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 563_99_2401

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR WILLIAM BIRTLES (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


MR RECORDER UNDERHILL QC

1. We propose to allow this appeal to proceed to a full hearing. In those circumstances, the less we say about the merits the better. It is enough to say that we are satisfied that it is arguable that the Tribunal, although we sympathise with the difficult situation in which it found itself, chose the wrong power under which to proceed, and then reached a conclusion that the Appellant had no serious intention of pursuing her claim which it was not entitled to reach on the material before it. It may also be arguable that the procedure followed was unjust, in that it gave the Appellant insufficient opportunity to respond to the 'show-cause' Order. That is, of course, a summary only: we do not intend to restrict the grounds on which the Appellant wishes to appeal.
2. There are a number of matters which follow.
3. First, we should make it plain that the case can proceed in relation to both the show- cause Order and the eventual Order dismissing the claim. The two are too closely interrelated for it to be sensible to make any distinction between them.
4. Secondly, in view of the long and unhappy history of this case, we direct that the appeals should be expedited.
5. Thirdly, we believe that it is important that the Appeal Tribunal at the full hearing have before it the full materials that were before the Tribunal on 3 and 4 March and are as fully informed as possible as to what happened at that hearing. Accordingly we direct that the Chairman's Notes be made available, in so far as they relate to the issue of the Appellant's request for an adjournment on the morning of 3 March, and to the making of the show-cause Order and the Tribunal's decision to strike out. Just so that it is clear what the thinking behind that is, it is unnecessary that the Chairman should transcribe those parts of his notes that relate solely to the substantive issue which the Tribunal heard on the morning of 3 March.
6. We also direct that there be provided to this Tribunal the materials that were before the Employment Tribunal. We are not clear precisely what those consisted of, but it is clear from the Chairman's Reasons that he did have access to material, presumably from the Employment Tribunal file, about previous applications for adjournments not all of which appear to be before us. It may be that the appropriate course is for the Employment Tribunal simply to release the entirety of its file; but the substance of the decision that we make is that there be supplied to this Tribunal those materials that were before the Employment Tribunal when it made its decision.
7. The appeal should be listed Category B, and we wish to indicate that it would be extremely desirable if Dr Valkova continue to have legal assistance: if the position is that she cannot afford assistance on a paying basis, we would regard this as an appropriate case for some form of pro bono assistance, if that can be obtained. We estimate the necessary time as three hours.