[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Springfield China Ltd v.O'reilly & Ors [2000] UKEAT 859_99_2001 (20 January 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/859_99_2001.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 859_99_2001

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR P JONES (Director) Springfield China Ltd Greendock Street Longton Stoke on Trent ST3 2NA
For the Respondents	Respondent neither present nor represented.


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE SMITH QC

1. This is an interlocutory appeal by Springfield China Ltd against the decision of a Chairman of an Employment Tribunal held at Shrewsbury on 7^th June 1999, when the Chairman made an order that the applications of Mrs O'Reilly, Ms Hemmings, Mr Hulme and Mrs White against Springfield China Ltd, which were then before the Employment Tribunal, appeared to him to be associated matters and should be heard together. It is quite clear from the very helpful correspondence we have seen from the Chairman in this matter that he proceeded under Rule 18 of the 1993 Employment Tribunal Constitution & Rules of Procedure Regulations and took the point of his own motion that it appeared to him that the originating applications should be the subject of combined proceedings and it is right that, unfortunately, as he explains in the correspondence, he took that decision without complying strictly with Rule 18, sub-rule 2 of the 1993 regulations. That sub-rule is in these terms:

"The Tribunal should only make an order under this rule if-

(a) each of the parties concerned has been given an opportunity at a hearing to show cause why such an order should not be made; or

(b) it has sent notice to all the parties concerned giving them an opportunity to show such cause."

2. It is common ground on the hearing of this appeal and is clear from the correspondence that the Appellants were not given such an opportunity and that is the point taken on appeal. We should point out, having considered the correspondence which has been placed before us, that it is clear that the Chairman has always been prepared to reconsider the order he had made if sufficient reasons were put before him to indicate that the applications should not be combined. However, instead of acting constructively in response to that suggestion, Mr Jones on behalf of the Appellant company has insisted in pursuing this appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal standing on the plain wording of the Rule and in particular Rule 18(2) of Schedule 1 to the regulations. In those circumstances we have concluded that the correct order for us to make is to set aside the original order made by the Chairman and to direct the Chairman to be good enough reconsider the application, and to reconsider whether these proceedings should be combined in conformity with Rule 18 of the 1993 Regulations so that that will mean that the Chairman should be good enough to make sure that the Appellants here are given an opportunity at a hearing to show cause why such an order should not be made, or alternatively to make sure that notice is sent to them giving them such an opportunity.
3. In reaching this conclusion and allowing the appeal on this basis, we note that the Respondents to the appeal, who are represented by a Trade Union, very sensibly accepted that the Employment Appeal Tribunal is likely to send the case back to the Tribunal with a direction to hear the Appellants and then make a fresh determination. They have written to say that in those circumstances they do not wish to play any part in the appeal. We think it is unfortunate that considerable delay has elapsed as a result of the stance taken by the Appellants, but in all the circumstances, for the reasons we have given, we allow the appeal and remit the matter to the Chairman to be dealt with in the way in which we have indicated in this judgment and on the basis that the original order combining the proceedings will have to be quashed.