Appeal No.	 EAT/570/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 9 July 1999

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MRS R A VICKERS
MS B SWITZER

MR A K AHMED	APPELLANT

COVENTRY BLACK COUNCIL & OTHERS	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MS J McNEAL 
(of Counsel)
APPEARING UNDER THE
EMPLOYMENT LAW APPEAL 
ADVICE SCHEME
(ELAAS)	

MR JUSTICE MORISON:	This is a judgment of two members of the Court; the President and Mrs Vickers, because I think it is appropriate that Ms Switzer, because of her involvement with the MSF Union should not formally adjudicate at this time.  

1	The matter came on for hearing in order to determine whether there is an arguable point of law.  If there is, the matter must go forward.  The state of play at the moment is that the Employment Tribunal has given a decision on 15 February 1999 refusing Mr Ahmed’s (the Appellant’s) application for adjournment, dismissing his complaints of breach of contract against the three Respondents and ordering him to pay to the second Respondent, that is the Coventry City Council, the sum of £500 by way of costs.  

2	Their decision was contained in summary reason form and an application for extended reasons has been made, but refused by the Employment Tribunal who have courteously indicated that should the Employment Appeal Tribunal request it, they would be happy to provide them.  

3	What Mr Ahmed says in this case is that he thought that the way the proceedings were conducted by the Employment Tribunal on the first day of the hearing on 27 January were unfair to him in various respects.  He puts it in this way:

“The Chair of the Tribunal panel created a culture of fear”

and it was in relation to that, as I understand it, that he did not feel able to continue on the following day.  He asked for the matter to be adjourned, and that application was refused.  There is obviously therefore an allegation here of bias and impropriety against the Tribunal and we have a procedure for dealing with appeals which raise such complaints.  This procedure must now be invoked. 

4	It seems to us that what Mr Ahmed must do is to put into affidavit form all his complaints that he wishes to advance on this appeal in support of his contention that he was unfairly, improperly dealt with at the Tribunal and any question of bias.  I include within that, his contention which is referred to but for which no details have been given , that one of the members of the panel of the Employment Appeal Tribunal had adjudicated on a claim by his co-applicant and therefore was not an appropriate person to be sitting at the Tribunal.  That point will have to be dealt with in the affidavit and as much particulars as possible given so that it can then be considered by the Employment Tribunal.  

5	When that affidavit has been completed it must be sent to the Tribunal for their comments and obviously, if the Chairman considers appropriate, to the lay member concerned for his or her comments as well.  It should also be sent to the Respondents who must be given an opportunity themselves to comment if they have any relevant material to put before the Court.  

6	It seems to us that in all the circumstances it would be appropriate for the Employment Appeal Tribunal to invite respectfully the learned Chairman to give the extended reasons for his decision.  I do not propose to make an order directing that he does so because I am confident that when he is sent a copy of this judgment, he will regard our request for it as sufficient and we would like to express our gratitude to him for taking the trouble to prepare for us extended written reasons, even though the application for them is made well out of time. 

7	When the affidavit material has been attended to, that is, when it has been prepared and sent to the other parties and to the Tribunal and they have had a chance to comment on it, this matter must be relisted.  The question is, should it be relisted for a preliminary hearing, or should it be relisted for a full hearing?  We cannot, as it seems to me, say at this time whether there are arguable points of law because we do not have the information available to us to enable us to reach such a conclusion.  Therefore it would have to be a preliminary hearing, but bearing in mind the timescale involved and the delay that might be involved, I think it would be right that this matter should be relisted for an inter-partes preliminary hearing at which the Respondents will be entitled to make any submissions they wish on the bias propriety point.  Only if Mr Ahmed and his advisors persuade us at that hearing that there is an arguable point of law, will the matter then proceed to a full hearing on that day.  

8	That means that when we have all the material, if we consider that there is an arguable point of law the appeal can be finally disposed of in one more hearing rather than the need for two more hearings.  I would estimate that it is likely to take half to three-quarters of a day bearing in mind the nature of the issues, assuming the appeal is to go ahead and it should be regarded as a Category A case, since it involves allegations of impropriety.  So, for the preliminary hearing it should be put in front of a High Court judge and his colleagues so that they can look at it at a preliminary stage and then if appropriate move on to a full hearing then and there.  

9	When correcting this judgment I must point out that in support of his application for an adjournment, Mr Ahmed produced a medical certificate.  I should also include within the judgment the fact that the appeal is not just on the question of impropriety and the refusal of the application of the adjournment but is also in relation to the costs order which was made.