[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Newton v. Alcohol East [2001] UKEAT 0707_01_2109 (21 September 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0707_01_2109.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 707_1_2109, [2001] UKEAT 0707_01_2109

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR A NEGISHI (Solicitor) FRU Peer House 8-14 Verulam St WC1X 8LZ


 


MR RECORDER UNDERHILL QC

1. In this appeal from the Employment Tribunal sitting at Stratford whose reasons were promulgated on 3 April 2001 we propose to give leave so that the matter may be argued fully with the Respondents in attendance.
2. The appeal relates to one aspect only of the decision that is the award of costs under rule 12(3)(c) of the Employment Tribunals Regulations Rules 1993. The question which we have to ask is whether there is an arguable case that the Tribunal may have been in error by taking into account some wrong principle of law misdirecting themselves or reaching a decision which no reasonable Tribunal could have reached.
3. We need to say a word about the basis on which we think this may be arguable in what is otherwise a clear matter falling within the Tribunal's discretion. At paragraph 18 of its decision the Tribunal accept submissions made by a Ms Bann on behalf of the Respondents. Part of those submissions were that from the outset the Applicant had sought to cause a maximum degree of inconvenience and expense to the Respondents.
4. It might be argued that there was no proper basis for that submission and, it would follow, for its adoption by the Tribunal in a situation in which the essential wrong-doing by the Appellant appears to have been not turning up for the hearing.
5. Secondly, the Tribunal selected paragraph 12(3)(c) as the appropriate order to make, because the Respondents were a charity. We find this basis for choosing that particular rule a little puzzling and would be assisted by fuller argument from the Respondents.
6. Accordingly on that basis this case should go forward. It should be listed for a hearing Category C. We think it should take no more than one hour to argue. We would ask that skeleton arguments together with copies of any cases to be relied upon be filed in this Tribunal and exchanged no less than fourteen days prior to the date of hearing.
7. If in the course of consideration by the respective parties it appears that - perhaps in the light of the contents of the letter from the Appellant to the Employment Tribunal of 7 April 2001 - this case can and should be disposed of otherwise than by an appeal to this Tribunal, incurring expense which may not be recoverable, then this Tribunal should be notified at the earliest possibility for listing purposes. We say this of course only for the convenience of the list office and for no other reason.