[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Oritsejaro v. Royal Mail Group Plc [2003] UKEAT 0619_03_1709 (17 September 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2003/0619_03_1709.html Cite as: [2003] UKEAT 0619_03_1709, [2003] UKEAT 619_3_1709

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	No Appearance or Representation By or on Behalf of the Appellant
For the Respondent	MISS S PALMER (of Counsel) Instructed by: Royal Mail Group Plc Impact House 2 Edridge Road Croydon Surrey CR9 1PJ


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE J McMULLEN QC

1. This judgment should be read with my judgment on the Applicant's Rule 21 appeal. I now turn to the application made under Rule 3 (10), to which I have made brief mention above.
2. Miss Palmer is still in court but plays no part in this hearing and has not addressed any Skeleton Argument to it.
3. My concern is simply to decide whether the Notice of Appeal dated 24 April 2003 discloses a point of law so that the case can be brought within the jurisdiction of the EAT (see section 21 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996).
4. The basis of the Applicant's appeal are two or possibly three letters by the Employment Tribunals in Stratford recording directions given in respect of preparation for the hearing of the Applicant's cases.
5. The decision of the Registrar, as recorded in a letter sent on her behalf, is that the case discloses no arguable point. Objection is taken to this letter on the ground that it was made by Mr Simon Mennie who is a case manager in this court. The Applicant is under a misapprehension about the procedure here. Mr Mennie is not a judicial officer and corresponds with litigants, as in this case, communicating decisions made by either the Registrar or by a judge.
6. Pursuant to the Practice Direction Burton P considered the Applicant's appeal in this case. He considered that these matters warranted the attention of the Registrar under Rule 3 (7) of the EAT Rules. He made a recommendation to her. The Registrar, exercising the jurisdiction which she has alone, made the decision that the appeal involves case management decisions properly taken by a Chairman in the course of her duties to secure the overriding objective set out in Regulation 10 of the 2001 Regulations, and her powers of case management, and discloses no point of law.
7. The Applicant exercised his right to have the matter referred to a judge and again in accordance with current practice this matter has come on for an oral hearing before me, at which the Applicant was entitled to be heard. I have read again his arguments about this which seem to consist entirely of a complaint that Mr Mennie exercised the decision. That, however, is misconceived. The decision was taken by the Registrar.
8. In any event, the jurisdiction which I have is not to hear an appeal but to hear an application and so I hear the matter entirely afresh and make my own judgment about whether this case falls within the jurisdiction of the EAT.
9. There is no basis for holding that a question of law arises on the basis put forward by the Applicant in his letter of 6 June 2003 since these are essentially attacks upon Mr Mennie and include allegations that the Applicant's human rights have been blocked. There is no point of law in these documents and I dismiss the application, order that no further action will be taken on the Notice of Appeal and dismiss the potential appeal.