MR M D ADAMS v LEICESTERSHIRE YOUTH TRAINING TRUST [2000] UKEAT 378_00_0910

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
BAILII case number: [2000] UKEAT 378_00_0910Case No Appeal No. EAT/378/00Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
Between
MR M D ADAMSAPPELLANTLEICESTERSHIRE YOUTH TRAINING TRUSTRESPONDENT
Before
His Honour Judge J R ReidDate 9 October 2000
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant MR J N GALBRAITH-MARTEN (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advisory Scheme JUDGE REID QC : This is an ex parte preliminary hearing in which we have to determine whether Mr Adams' appeal against the striking out of his claim for failure to pay £100 by way of deposit should proceed to a full hearing. The position was that Mr Adams was ordered to make a payment of £100 by the Employment Tribunal. He appealed against that decision, and pending his appeal against that decision Morison J sitting in the Employment Appeal Tribunal ordered a stay of the payment. The words, which Morison J used in the Order, were:
"… time for payment of the aforesaid deposit shall be extended until after the determination of the Appeal herein."
It was then ordered that the appeal be listed for hearing on 10th May 1999.[2]On 10th May 1999 the hearing was conducted and concluded. The decision, we are told, was not announced that day. By an order dated that day and promulgated on 11th May 1999, the appeal was dismissed.[3]On the same day the Employment Tribunal struck out Mr Adams' claim for failure to comply with the order for payment. There is no reference in that decision to the extension of time granted by Morison J and it is not impossible that owing to some administrative oversight the tribunal was not aware that time had been extended. All that the tribunal said:
"1. At the hearing which took place on 8 April 1999, the applicant was ordered to pay a deposit in the sum of £100 as a condition of being permitted to take part in the proceedings. 2. The said sum had to be remitted within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the document recording the making of the order was sent to the applicant. 3. The applicant has failed to remit the said sum within the specified period or at all. Accordingly, pursuant to the said Rule, I order that the Originating Application be struck out."
[4]At the time that that order was made Mr Adams was, it appears, unaware of the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal made following the hearing on 10th May 1999. He in fact received both decisions at the same time, Counsel instructed on Mr Adams' behalf through the ELAAS scheme tells us. He therefore he had no opportunity before the striking out to pay £100 deposit, though clearly following the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal he was obliged to do so.[5]In our judgment, there is clearly an arguable case for saying that the Employment Tribunal was wrong in law or acted in a way in which no reasonable Employment Tribunal could properly have done in striking out Mr Adams' claim for failure to pay £100 deposit at a time when Mr Adams had had no notification of the failure of his appeal. It seems to us that that is plainly arguable.[6]It is also arguable that, as a matter of the true construction of the order of stay, the striking out was premature.[7]In those circumstances, we consider that this matter should go to a full hearing. In order to allow that full hearing to proceed, we direct that Mr Adams lodge an amended Notice of Appeal, which we are told Mr Galbraith-Marten will assist him in drafting, which sets out what the real issues are on that appeal.[8]We therefore direct that the matter should go to a full appeal and we direct that amended grounds of appeal should be lodged within 14 days.