Orme v South Gloucestershire Council [1997] UKEAT 305_97_1107

EAT
Orme v South Gloucestershire Council
[1997] UKEAT 305_97_1107 · 1997-07-11

JUDGE PETER CLARK :

This is an appeal by Mr Orme, the applicant before the Bristol Industrial Tribunal, against an order of a Chairman, Mr C G Toomer sitting alone on 24th January 1997, that he pay a deposit of £100 as a condition of being permitted to continue to take part in proceedings which he commenced against the respondent, South Gloucestershire Council, by an Originating Application presented on 3rd December 1996. An application for a review was dismissed, on the ground that the Chairman's order was not a 'decision' within the definition contained in Regulation 2(2) of the Industrial Tribunal's (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993.By his Originating Application he alleged breach of contract, constructive dismissal and discrimination by the respondent in and about his work for them as a supply teacher.In their Notice of Appearance the respondent says that he worked for them for four days on a casual basis during the period 11th September to 28th November 1996. They say that he did not receive further supply work from them because he did not complete an application form for registration as a supply teacher.

Deposits

The Industrial Tribunal Rules of Procedure to be found in Schedule 1 to the 1993 Regulations, introduced for the first time a power to order a deposit on a pre-hearing review. The powers are contained within Rule 7 and, in particular, Mr Orme draws attention to Rule 7(5) which provides:
"(5) No order shall be made under this rule unless the tribunal has taken reasonable steps to ascertain the ability of the party against whom it is proposed to make the order to comply with such an order, and has taken account of any information so ascertained in determining the amount of the deposit."

The Chairman's Order

In summary reasons dated 28th January 1997 the Chairman concluded that the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success; he gave reasons for reaching that conclusion; he considered the applicant's means and concluded that he should pay a deposit of £100.

The Appeal

Mr Orme submits that the Chairman failed properly to take into account hardship caused to him if a deposit was ordered. He had recently completed four weeks sick absence, and was not likely to receive payment having restarted work for a further six to eight weeks. He tells us that he managed to pay the deposit but went into overdraft in order to do so.In our judgment no point of law is raised in this appeal.In the real world respondents such as this one are funded by the taxpayer. Rule 7 of the Industrial Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 is a modest attempt to say to applicants, whose cases are, on the fact of it, seen by an experienced Industrial Tribunal Chairman to have no reasonable prospect of success, put your money where your mouth is. Access to the Industrial Tribunal is free; if the applicant wins his case, his deposit is refunded.Where, as in this case, the Chairman has exercised his judgment in accordance with the requirements of the Rules and, in particular, enquired into the applicant's means before making the order for a deposit to be paid, it will be rare indeed for any error of law to be made out, such as to give this appeal tribunal jurisdiction to interfere with the Chairman's order. In our judgment, this is not one of those rare cases, and accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.