MRS J MAYO-DEMAN v UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH & OTHERS [2005] UKEAT 0875_03_1506

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

BAILII case number: [2005] UKEAT 0875_03_1506

Case No Appeal No. UKEAT/0875/03

Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

Between

MRS J MAYO-DEMANAPPELLANT

UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH & OTHERSRESPONDENT

Before

His Honour Judge Jr Reid

Lord Davies of Coity

Date 15 June 2005

[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant MR R CHAUDHARY (Lay Representative) For the Respondent MR M SHERIDAN (of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Archon Martin House 5 Martin Lane London EC4R 0DP SUMMARY Practice and Procedure Employment Tribunal not wrong to dismiss application on basis of settlement which did not comply with terms of RRA s.72(4A) and SDA and 77(4A). HIS HONOUR JUDGE JR REID QC Preliminary Point What we have been asked to deal with is the question as to whether Lord Davies should disqualify himself as a member of the panel. The basis upon which that application is made is fourfold.

[2]Firstly, that he has connections through the Labour Party and through his membership of the House of Lords with Lord Triesman, as he now is who was formerly an official of the AUT and also General Secretary of the Labour Party, as I understand it. Secondly, that on a previous occasion he was perceived by amongst others Mrs Deman, to be hostile in the course of a hearing, not a hearing of this appeal, to Mr Deman. Thirdly, that he has connections with the Labour Party; and fourthly that he has connections through a fellow member of the House of Lords, with Lady Blackstone who over the last year or so since, if my memory serves, since leaving front bench politics, has become the Vice-Chancellor of Greenwich University.

[3]The question which we have to ask ourselves is whether any reasonable person viewing the matter objectively would think that there is any possibility, a real possibility as opposed to a purely fanciful one, of bias. Mr Chaudhary, to whom we are grateful for putting his points in a sensible and reasoned manner, suggests that there would be such a perception. We regret to say that we disagree with him in this particular instance. The Claimant in this particular case is not Mr Deman, it is Mrs Deman. It does not seem to us the fact that in another case there has been what has been perceived to be something of a run-in between the Claimant's husband and a member of the Tribunal could lead to a reasonable person having a perception of possible bias. So far as the connection with Lord Triesman is concerned, he is not a party in any way to this particular application. I think the nearest that can be said he gets to it, is that the Second Respondent is a member of the union of which Lord Triesman was at one time an officer.

[4]So far as Lady Blackstone is concerned, the fact that both Lord Davies and Lady Blackstone have reached the eminence of the House of Lords and therefore, assuming they both turn up and do their job, will have had some occasional meetings with each other, does not seem to us, to be of any assistance to Mr Chaudhary. Here we have a case about a comparatively small sum of money - at the present time - relating to events a number of years before Lady Blackstone had any connection with the university.

[5]Looking at the matter overall, it does not seem to us that the fact that Lord Davies is a well known supporter of the Labour party can possible be a relevant consideration.

[6]Taking each of those matters separately and taking all four together we do not think that any reasonable independent observer could think that there was any real, as opposed to fanciful, possibility of bias. It therefore seems to us that the appropriate course is to continue with the existing Panel. "Dear Mr Carlo I acknowledge a receipt of your letter 28 th February 2003 on the above matter. Although I thought our offer of settlement was reasonable I have taken further instruction from my wife in the light of your recent letter. She has agreed to settle the matter on the terms you initially offered in your letter of 26 th February 2003. I would be grateful if you could notify the Tribunal and ACAS that we have reached an agreement so that we do not have to go on Monday to the hearing. I am looking forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely…" "My wife instructs me that this offer is valid only today by 4.00pm. If she has to go to the Tribunal on Monday she would not agree to the terms of the agreement. Please let me know ASAP." And the second:

"PS – enclosed form of sign copy of agreement. I expect your Counsel to be truthful about the terms of settlement to the Tribunal. Please provide me with a copy of your letter to Tribunal." "16 Mr Graham stated, having read the correspondence he could see that 'surrender' had been signed. The Chairman pointed out there were circumstances where signed terms of agreement would not necessarily be valid but the Tribunal had heard no evidence. Mr Graham then stated that he had no argument with the Tribunal's verdict and that he fully accepted on the evidence the matter had been withdrawn. Mr Graham then went on to say it was not the picture that he had got from Mr Deman in answer to the question from the Chairman he said that he had not spoken to Mrs Deman, and he agreed that Mrs Deman had signed the terms of agreement. Finally Mr Graham said both sides wanted an adjournment to settle the matter by ACAS but the Court would not grant an adjournment, so a quick solution had been forced." "3 There be leave to file and serve a substituted the Notice of Appeal on 1) whether the Employment Tribunal was wrong to dismiss the application in that the terms of settlement did not comply with s77(4a) of the Sex Discrimination Act and s72(4A0 of the Race Relations Act and 2) whether the Employment Tribunal was wrong no to fully acknowledge Mr Graham as the proper representative of the Appellant, such Notice of Appeal to be served within 21 days of the seal date of this Order." "4 (b) Tribunal erred in law Failure in not fully acknowledging Mr Graham as proper representative of the Appellant at the hearing in breach Article 6 and/or due to general & specific bias."

And then at the end of the note of the Amended Notice of Appeal "For the above reasons the Tribunal erred in law and/or misdirected itself and/or reached adverse or bias result in dismissing application and not recognising Mr Graham as representative."