"4. Before this hearing Counsel for the parties came in to tell the Tribunal that they had prepared their documentation on the basis that the hearing would be before a Chairman sitting alone and not a full Tribunal. There was consequently a requirement for further copying. The Chairman, who had prepared himself for the hearing by reading the file and a bundle of documents that had already been submitted, disclosed that he was aware of the information conceded by the Respondent two days earlier. 5 On their return, the Respondent's counsel submitted that the Tribunal was therefore biased and demanded a postponement and transfer to another region. 6 Having considered the submission of both counsel, the Tribunal took the view that there was no bias and refused both a postponement and a transfer. The reasons were as follows. First, the Tribunal was not aware of the details of the other cases. The information disclosed was neutral. If the situation reflected on the Respondent, it must equally reflect on the Applicant. He was the Respondent's Group Solicitor with conduct of the previous hearings until 26 February and could not be dissociated from what had happened. If any impressions had been formed from a reading of the papers, which included the witness statements of both parties, it was pointed out that first impressions could easily be dispelled on hearing the evidence."
"The position is I believe adequately covered in the decision which was given in this matter and I have no further observations to make."
"9 Mr Snelson's invitation to us is to adjourn the proceedings until after the renewed application for leave to appeal. Attractive as the argument is that there needs to be a final determination of the jurisdictional point before the Tribunal can properly deal with the substantive case because the Respondent here says that Article 18 of the Brussels Convention puts them in difficulty in dealing with this case substantively we are not persuaded. 10 It seems to us that the proper analysis is this. If we were to postpone the hearing, either the Court of Appeal will give leave to appeal, in which case the parties are no further forward because the Respondent will still be taking their jurisdictional point, or the Court of Appeal will refuse leave and the Respondent will have to decide then whether to appeal or not. However they will still at that stage, it is likely, have an outstanding appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on the jurisdictional point because those appeals have not yet been listed for a preliminary hearing. Even then they will either again have to weigh their perceived jurisdictional objection to taking part in the proceedings under Article 18, or not take part in the proceedings. 11 The jurisdictional point is, insofar as these points ever are, relatively straightforward. Either the Tribunal has jurisdiction under Article 2 or Article 5(1) or Article 5(5) in which case the Respondent must submit the jurisdiction because they have no choice or, if those Articles do not confer jurisdiction, then they do not wish to submit to the jurisdiction because of the problem of Article 18 which says that if they enter into the arena and deal with the matters substantively they are taken to have submitted to the jurisdiction. 12 In summary then, applying the analysis that we have given, there will either be substantial delay in this matter being dealt with by both parties on the merits or the Employment Tribunal will be in no different position form the position it is in today. Because we cannot and will not revisit or review the merits of the jurisdictional arguments which we recite only to clarify the dilemma which faces us and the parties today we decline, in the exercise of our discretion, to postpone this matter and, with the exhortations given by the Employment Tribunal ringing in our ears, decide that this case will proceed today."