Appeal No.	 EAT/1349/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 31 January 1997

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MISS A MADDOCKS OBE
MR J R RIVERS

MRS M DE SOUZA	APPELLANT

THE AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	APPELLANT IN PERSON	

	JUDGE PETER CLARK  At this preliminary hearing we have before us two appeals by Mrs de Souza.  The first is against a decision of a Chairman sitting at the Southampton Industrial Tribunal, striking out her originating application dated 25 August 1993 under Rule 13(2)(d) of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 (“the Rules”).  The extended reasons for that first decision are dated 16 October 1996.  The second appeal is against a further decision dated 31 October 1996 by the same Chairman, dismissing her application for a review of that first decision.

	Her originating application raised a claim against the Automobile Association (“AA”) under Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome that she had been less favourably treated by the AA on the grounds of her sex in relation to her pension terms.

	Subsequently, the European Court of Justice gave judgment in the cases of Coloroll Pension Trustees Ltd v Russell and Others [1995] ICR 179.  Those decisions ruled that no such claim would be entertained, following the decision in Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group [1990] ICR 616, in respect of periods of service before 17 May 1990, that is, the date of the Barber judgment.

	The Appellant submits that she did make a relevant claim prior to 17 May 1990.  It was a claim inter alia for wrongful dismissal following her dismissal by the AA in July 1984.  She tells us that that claim is still proceeding in Europe.

	In our judgment a claim for wrongful dismissal does not fall within the category of relevant claims envisaged by the European Court in Coloroll and, secondly, we do not accept that she remained in the employment of the AA after notice of dismissal was given to her in July 1984.

	The Chairman held that this claim had no reasonable prospect of success.  That is not the test under Rule 13(2)(d).  However, we affirm his first decision on the basis that this claim is frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process.

	As to the review application, we can see no grounds for interfering with the exercise of the Chairman’s discretion under Rule 11(5).

	Mrs de Souza complains that her claim was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal without a hearing.  She has now been heard.  Having heard her, we can see no arguable point of law raised in either appeal.  Accordingly, both must be dismissed.