Appeal No.	 EAT/0346/03/DA

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 19 May 2003

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J McMULLEN QC
(SITTING ALONE)

(1) JOHN EMMINS 
(2) FEDERATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES	APPELLANTS

MR M S SANDERSON	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	No appearance or 
representation by or 
on behalf of the Appellants

For the Respondent	No appearance or 
representation by or 
on behalf of the Respondent

HIS HONOUR JUDGE J McMULLEN QC

1	This is an interim appeal against the Decision of an Employment Tribunal to list for a remedies hearing the Decision which it made in favour of the Applicant in those proceedings, due to commence on 23 May next Friday.

2	The Applicant claimed sex discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act in September 2000 and failed.  On 25 October 2001 he claims he was subject to victimisation and submitted an Originating Application on 21 January 2002.  Eleven months later, the Tribunal heard his complaint in Manchester and sent Summary Reasons on 20 January 2003.  It fixed a remedies hearing for 17 March.  

3	On 24 February the Respondents sought a postponement, giving reasons including difficulty in arranging for continuity of advocacy and in taking instructions, since the Respondent Federation consists of 170,000 members.  The application was granted and the hearing was re-set for 23 May 2003.  

4	The Respondent has now made a further application, containing grounds not alluded to in its first application, for a postponement, but by a letter of 24 April 2003, it was suggested that Abbey Protection Ltd had received instructions to appeal.  Abbey Protection is noted on the Notice of Appearance and thus has been in the position to advise the Respondents from the earliest opportunity.  The sole basis upon which the application is made is reliance on the overriding objective in Regulation 10 of the 2001 Rules.  To allow the remedies hearing to proceed would involve further costs and the possibility of an appeal to the EAT, and thus be contrary to the overriding Regulation.  

5	In written submissions and Skeleton Arguments presented on behalf of the Respondent, their case is further made out by reference to the judgment in Noorani -v- Merseyside TEC Ltd [1999[ IRLR 184.  Essentially, the Respondents take each part of the overriding obligation and contend that to go ahead with the remedies hearing would be unjust and also indicate that the quantum in this case is small, since the Applicant is not an employee, but is affected by twelve of the sex discrimination acts which characterises this Respondent within that group.  

6	In my judgment, those grounds are entirely misconceived.  Of course there will be costs in attending a hearing, but it is now five months since the liability hearing and eighteen months since the substantive event.  It is in the interests of justice that the Applicant’s successful claim now be subjected to a remedies hearing.  The fact that the Respondent is appealing is not a ground for stopping the clock in the circumstances of this case.  

7	The overriding objective in Regulation 10 is discharged by the Tribunal making the Order it did.  Applying the approach in Noorani, I can see nothing wrong in principle or outside the band of reasonable disagreement with the decision which it made first to allow the application made by the Respondent once, and now to reject it.  The appeal is dismissed.