Castleton v Benefits Agency DSS [1997] UKEAT 30_97_0905

EAT
Castleton v Benefits Agency DSS
[1997] UKEAT 30_97_0905 · 1997-05-09

JUDGE LEVY QC:

By an application to an Industrial Tribunal dated 7 December 1995 and received on 9 December 1995, Mrs Janet Castleton alleged that she had suffered sex discrimination and victimisation as an employee of the Benefits Agency. The Benefits Agency entered a Notice of Appearance on 16 February 1996. There was a hearing before an Industrial Tribunal at Leeds on 25 April 1996 and 11 June 1996. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that two of the complaints of Mrs Castleton were held to have been presented in time, the third complaint was held to have been presented out of time. The decision was communicated to the parties on 9 July 1996.There was an application for a review of the decision in respect of that on which Mrs Castleton was held to be out of time, which was heard by the Chairman sitting alone. His decision, which was remitted to the parties on 29 August 1996, said:
"In exercise of the power conferred upon me by 11(5) of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 I refuse the application for a review by the applicant contained in her letter dated 13 August 1996 on the grounds that it has no reasonable prospect of success."
In the reasons for the application for review being dismissed, the Chairman takes the point that the application for renewal was out of time, apart from the merits of the case. From that, by a Notice of Appeal dated 4 September 1996, Mrs Castleton appeals from the refusal to review.In a fax received this morning, she says she does not intend to be present at the hearing due to domestic responsibility and travel costs. We have also received from her a Skeleton Argument for the hearing in which she suggests that the decision was perverse on various bases. In paragraph 3 of her Skeleton Argument she admits that the application for review was out of time.In our judgement, having read carefully the reasons given in the original decision why the Applicant failed, we think the decision reached by the Tribunal was one which it was perfectly entitled to reach. The reasons given in the review show an exercise of discretion by the Chairman, which is, in our judgement, impeccable. The Chairman reached a decision exercising his discretion which he was entitled to reach and the appeal against the review is one which is bound to fail. It is therefore our duty to strike it out at this stage.