SEMA GROUP UK LTD v MR J R HADDOCK [2001] UKEAT 1_01_0905

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
BAILII case number: [2001] UKEAT 1_01_0905Case No Appeal.No. EAT/1/01; EAT/2/01Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
Between
SEMA GROUP UK LTDAPPELLANTMR J R HADDOCKRESPONDENT
Before
Her Honour Judge A Wakefield Mr P R A JacquesDate 9 May 2001
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant MR J TAYLER (Of Counsel) Bird & Bird 90 Fetter Lane London EC4A 1LP JUDGE A WAKEFIELD This is an ex parte Preliminary Hearing of two appeals by Sema Group UK Ltd. The first appeal is against a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Reading on 4 September 2000, by which it was decided that the Respondent (the original Applicant) was discriminated against by the Appellant on grounds of disability and a total sum awarded in compensation of £65,000.[2]The hearing took place without participation by the Appellants, they having failed to enter a Notice of Appearance to the Originating Application.[3]The decision is appealed on the basis that it is wrong in law, as regards the finding of no justification for the discrimination and as to the quantum of the compensation. The difficulty facing the Appellants is that, in accordance with a Practice Direction issued by this Tribunal and effective from 15 April 1996, it is provided as follows:
" PARAGRAPH 16 Failure to give Notice of Appearance 1. If the Appellant in the case has not entered a Notice of Appearance before the Industrial Tribunal and has not applied to the Industrial Tribunal for an extension of time for doing so or has applied for such an extension and been refused it, the Notice of Appeal will be immediately set down to be heard as a preliminary hearing. 2. The Appellant will not be permitted to pursue the appeal unless the Employment Appeal Tribunal is satisfied at the preliminary hearing that: (1) There is a good excuse for failing to enter a Notice of Appearance and (if that be the case) for failing to apply for such an extension of time and (2) there is a reasonably arguable defence to the claim on the Originating Application."
[4]Having considered the skeleton argument of the Appellant we are not satisfied at this Preliminary Hearing that there is a good excuse within the meaning of that Practice Direction for failing to enter a Notice of Appearance.[5]However, we do consider that there is an argument, which should go to a full hearing, as to whether the Tribunal was correct in law in their findings as to discrimination and in their assessment of the compensation.[6]This being the case, we are not going to deprive the Appellant of the opportunity of a full hearing of the appeal by reason of the Practice Direction. The first appeal will therefore go ahead to a full hearing.[7]The second appeal is against the decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Reading on 27 October 2000, by which the Appellant was refused leave to file a Notice of Appearance out of time.[8]The decision is attacked primarily on the grounds that the Tribunal failed properly to consider and to weigh the competing interests of the parties and the prejudice to each by granting or refusing leave.[9]Whilst we find little substance in these criticisms, we consider that to dismiss this second appeal at this stage would unduly tie the hands of the Appeal Tribunal which hears the first appeal. We therefore allow this second appeal also to proceed to a Full Hearing.