Cannon v Teifi [1999] UKEAT 1026_98_0803

EAT
Cannon v Teifi
[1999] UKEAT 1026_98_0803 · 1999-03-08

JUDGE D M LEVY QC :

Mrs Cannon wishes to appeal against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Carmarthen. The Tribunal sat on 6 May 1998. A decision was given in the Welsh language on 3 June 1998 and a translation was rendered in the English language on 16 June 1998. It is this translation which we have considered at this hearing.We are not clear whether there has been a mistranslation in paragraph 17 of the Extended Reasons in English. There is a sentence which reads:
"She [referring to Mrs Cannon] had a conversation then with Delyth Rees who was unwelcoming. Suspicion arose even though it was never to claim .... [We think that probably 'it' should be 'she']. "
Nobody in court has been able to verify whether it is a mistranslation or an error which is also in the original language.However that may be, we have had the benefit of Mr Sethi representing Mrs Cannon on the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme this morning, and he has satisfied us that there are three grounds of appeal which should go forward. We will allow those grounds which will be identified in an Amended Notice of Appeal, to be prepared and submitted in the next 14 days to set out the grounds on which reliance is placed. All these grounds, we think, were discernible in the earlier notice, but if any objection is raised by the Respondent to the Amended Notice, a prompt application should be made by him.We have not allowed the appeal to go forward on two other grounds which seem to us to be peripheral to the matters on which leave has been given. These are to do with alleged bias by the Chairman. One of them arises because, after the judgment had been given, he is alleged to have delivered a homily. This seems to us not to be material if any of the first three grounds are made out. The other was a failure to grant an adjournment before final submissions were made. At that time, the Applicant submits that it should have been apparent to the Chairman that she was not as well as he may have thought she was. Again, if any of the first three grounds of appeal are made good, this complaint is immaterial and, in our judgment would not give grounds for a successful appeal.We think it would be helpful for the Appeal Tribunal if the Appellant swore an affidavit to deal with matters which are necessary for consideration of the Tribunal for grounds 2 and 3 of the Amended Appeal. They are perhaps to be found in the document attached to an affidavit sworn on 9 October 1998. It would be better for the Appeal Tribunal if such an affidavit was in a form which would be more readily of assistance to the Tribunal which hears the actual appeal.There has been an application by the Respondent as follows:
"If the Tribunal decides that the matter should proceed to a full hearing, our Clients would wish to be represented and wish to make an application for a direction that the Appeal should be listed for hearing in Wales in order that Section 22 (1) of the Welsh Language Act 1993 (which allows the Welsh language to be spoken by any person who desires to use it in any legal proceedings in Wales) might apply to the Appeal."
Apparently, that suggestion was mounted in a letter to the Employment Appeal Tribunal of 13 August 1998. The letter continues:
"... and for an alternative direction that our Clients be given leave to address the Tribunal through the medium of Welsh at the full hearing."
If the Respondent wishes to make such an application it should be so on notice to the Applicant and costs of the application will be at large. An application should be made within14 days of the communication of this judgment.We would thank Mr Sethi for his help in this application this morning.