![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> X v. Y & Ors [2000] UKEAT 296_00_1703 (17 March 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/296_00_1703.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 296_00_1703, [2000] UKEAT 296__1703 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR J R CROSBY
MR R SANDERSON OBE
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
INTERLOCUTORY
For the Appellant | MR S GORTON (of Counsel) Messrs Weightmans Solicitors 41 Spring Gardens Manchester M2 2BG |
For the First Respondent For the Second Respondents |
MS R CRASNOW (of Counsel) Messrs Irwin Mitchell Solicitors 48-50 St John's Street London EC1M 4DS THE SECOND RESPONDENTS NEITHER BEING PRESENT NOR REPRSENTED |
JUDGE PETER CLARK: We shall make a Restricted Reporting Order in this case.
"(a) I do not believe that it serves the interests of justice for this case to be delayed. The applicant has been off work as a result, she alleges, of the treatment she received, since March 1999 and there is no prospect, even with my timetable, that the case will be heard before April 2000.
(b) There are no expected criminal or other civil proceedings arising from this case. This judicial process is more important than that subsidiary disciplinary hearings against the respondents.
(c) I believe that the appropriate and proper course is for these proceedings to continue and for [Y] to take its decisions with regard to any disciplinary processes in the context of this case proceeding."
JUDGE PETER CLARK: Following delivery of our judgment in this case, Ms Crasnow applies on behalf of the applicant for the costs in this appeal limited to £500. She submits that in accordance with Rule 34(1) of the EAT Rules the appellant's conduct in bringing this appeal was unreasonable and that accordingly an order should be made.
We have no hesitation in upholding that application. This was a hopeless appeal and the appellant should pay the sum of £500 costs to the applicant. There is no costs order in respect of the remaining respondents below.