MR P J WILSON v SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL [2001] UKEAT 508_00_2203

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
BAILII case number: [2001] UKEAT 508_00_2203Case No Appeal No. EAT/508/00Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
Between
MR P J WILSONAPPELLANTSHEFFIELD CITY COUNCILRESPONDENT
Before
Mr Recorder Langstaff Mr J R Rivers Mr H SinghDate 22 March 2001
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant MRS GRACE WILSON Representative 2 Southey Hall Drive Sheffield S5 7PR MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC This matter comes before us by way of a second Preliminary Hearing. There was an earlier Preliminary Hearing before His Honour Judge Levy who at page 70 in the bundle set out at paragraph 3 matters which he thought required further investigation before this Appeal could proceed to a full appeal.[2]The reasons for that are set out at paragraphs 4 and 5. As to point 5 we share the doubts that His Honour Judge Levy expressed as to the force of that ground and we do not think that it amounts to an arguable procedural irregularity.[3]At page 72 in paragraph 8 His Honour Judge Levy summarises the fourth complaint raised by Mrs Wilson on behalf of her husband. It is plain from what Mrs Wilson has said to us today that she was surprised and upset by the change to what she had expected to be the procedure. However, although it may be and indeed appears from the affidavits from the Chairman and the lay members of the Tribunal to have been the case that the Chairman did not invite the views of either Mr or Mrs Wilson as to the proposed change from usual procedure which he suggested that that procedure did not, in our view, amount to any arguable procedural irregularity. The important matter was that both parties were heard. As it happened, Mrs Wilson, perhaps with the assistance of her husband, had 3 weeks in which to prepare any closing submissions and indeed to consider the cases which it appears constituted the bundle of documents handed to Mr Wilson by Mr Parkin for the Respondent before the adjournment took place.[4]However, we do think that there are matters here which require the consideration of a full hearing before this Tribunal. We note that the affidavit from the Chairman has not answered two of the allegations raised by Mrs Wilson and explored by His Honour Judge Levy and it is arguable that there are inconsistencies between that which the Chairman says and that which Mr Reid and Mr Walker recollect. We consider that there may here be a case to support what is said at page 5 in the Notice of Appeal and I shall read the 4 paragraphs because we give permission for these 4 paragraphs and these 4 paragraphs alone to form the basis of a full appeal. They read:
"From the very first day, when Mrs Wilson tried to explain to Mr David that she was my representative the chairman bluntly told her that she could only speak when giving evidence. On one occasion when she raised her finger to politely ask the chairman if she could question Mr Bailey when he made very serious allegations against her, the chairman told her infront of the 11 men to either be quite, shut up or he throws her out. Mrs Wilson was shocked and alarmed and very upset. Please find enclosed the letter dated the 6 th of January, 2000 stating that the Tribunal had no objection for Mrs Wilson to represent me, and be a witness. The denial of Mrs Wilson as my representative placed me at a distinct and unfair disadvantage but when it came to the respondent's representative, there was no such restriction. It was very difficult for myself to present my case on my own."
[5]It may be a case of crossed wires where Mrs Wilson, it appears, may have been told by the Employment Tribunal that she could present the case for her husband and it may be that she was not at the hearing permitted to do so and it may also be that failure to permit her to do so caused disadvantage to her and her husband in the conduct of those proceedings.[6]We have emphasised that we have formed no concluded view as to whether this is or whether it is not a case of procedural irregularity. That is not for us. It is only for us to say that there is an arguable case that it might be so. On that ground alone, therefore, we shall permit the case to go forward to a full hearing. That will be on the sole ground that we have identified. Any skeleton argument which supports that ground and shows how Mr Wilson was disadvantaged in the conduct of his case because Mrs Wilson was not permitted to act as representative needs to be here at this Tribunal no less than 2 weeks before the hearing. If there is any case (which Mrs Wilson thinks) would help the Tribunal, a copy of that case must be with this Tribunal, 3 copies, please, at least a week before the hearing. The hearing will take 2 hours on the basis that there is just this one ground to argue.