BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Cohen v London Borough Of Barnet [1991] UKEAT 320_91_0807 (8 July 1991) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1991/320_91_0807.html Cite as: [1991] UKEAT 320_91_807, [1991] UKEAT 320_91_0807 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC
Miss J W Collerson
Ms P Smith
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant The Appellant in Person
For the Respondents MR M R JONES
The Solicitor
London Borough of Barnet
Town Hall
The Burroughs
Hendon
LONDON
NW4 4RG
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): These are a number of Interlocutory Appeals by Mr Cohen, who has been acting for himself throughout, and who has issued a number of Originating Applications under the Race Relations Act of 1976 against the London Borough of Barnet.
There are six Originating Applications and in order to clarify the position I will give them their numbers. They are 17847 of 1990, in which the allegation is a failure to promote and other allegations of what can be called verbal abuse or harassment; secondly, 30993 of 1990 dated 7th November 1990, that claims discrimination in failing to give access to a public building; the third is 04787 of 1991 dated 4th February 1991, in which complaint is made about an advertisement of the 9th November 1990; the fourth is 07281 of 1991, dated the 21st February 1991 complaining about an advertisement in very similar wording, dated 25th January 1991; fifthly 07566 of 1991, dated 20th February 1991, again complaining about an advertisement in similar terms dated 8th February 1991 and sixth, and last for the present purposes, an Originating Application numbered 10672 of 1991 dated 18th March 1991, which alleges victimisation under the Race Relations Act in not meeting money claims made by Mr Cohen. He is of Jewish religion and his complaint is of discrimination against him on that account.
The London Borough of Barnet put in a Notice of Appearance to each of those applications and there has been a good deal of correspondence between the parties and between the Borough and the Industrial Tribunal staff. During that correspondence and indeed as evident during telephone conversations, there have been discussions between the Legal Department of the Borough and the staff of the Industrial Tribunal about extension of time for the Notices of Appearance; and about the question of dates for hearings. The complaint is made that because of those conversations, to which Mr Cohen was not a party but dealing with those matters, there was bias in the Tribunal's stance. We reject that totally, this is a normal administrative process and goes on every day of the week.
The learned Chairman has directed that those six Originating Applications should come before him at a Preliminary Hearing or Interlocutory Hearing, or the equivalent of a Summons for Directions, so that all issues and outstanding matters should be dealt with before a date is fixed for their hearing. It seems to us, as it may well seem to the learned Chairman, that it is sensible that they should be heard at the same time, whether together or one after the other is a matter for his discretion. I think somewhere his staff used the word "consolidation". Strictly speaking there is no power to "consolidate" but they can be heard together or one after the other. Mr Cohen complains that the Order has been made for that summons for Directions Hearing and he bases his complaint upon bias. We reject that, it seems to us abundantly clear that it is sensible to have that Preliminary Hearing. There is no possible ground for appeal on the basis of the complaints which have been made.
It so happens that there was a pre-hearing assessment in three of the six Originating Applications which we have mentioned namely in 04787 of 1991; 07281 of 1991 and 07566 of 1991. That was heard on 14th May 1991 and there was on that occasion a decision by a full Tribunal that they considered that those three applications had no reasonable prospect of success and there was what is called a "costs warning". Mr Cohen has appealed against that Order of the 14th May and that is due to be heard by a full Tribunal here within our Preliminary Hearing procedures. It is not before us today, we will hear it on some other date but we do not deal with his appeal from that Pre-Hearing Assessment; no doubt all these cases will be heard and directions given in due course. That will be matter for the learned Chairman to arrange; he will no doubt find a date which is convenient for both sides and the convenient course may be to ask Mr Cohen to ring those dates which are convenient to him in the following month so that a date can be fixed after consultation with the Borough of Barnet.
There is a seventh matter which appears before us and that is in connection with an Originating Application which is dated the 15th May 1991, we understand it is to be number 21419 of 1991. It is not entirely clear to us upon the documentation before us, what the present position is. It seemed that Mr Cohen either wanted to bring proceedings against a Mr Smith or wanted Mr Smith joined in proceedings. But precisely how that is relevant and precisely how the matter was dealt with is not entirely clear. We would respectfully suggest that that matter is heard on the same day as the Directions for the other six Originating Applications. Mr Cohen says he has a number of matters he wishes to put into writing, we hope he will put those into writing, send a copy to the Borough and send his original to the Industrial Tribunal so that his complaints about it, and his arguments, are clear on the Hearing for Directions of all these matters. The Industrial Tribunal will then be able to reach a conclusion upon this seventh matter as to whether it is properly issued and who the parties are, or who the parties should be in the circumstances. It seems to us at the moment somewhat obscure but no doubt the learned Chairman will be able to wrestle with the problem and reach a conclusion about it. After those Directions have been given no doubt a Hearing can be arranged in due course for the Hearing of the substantive issues between the parties.
It follows therefore that there is absolutely no ground for appeal in any of these cases and we are merely giving a judgment so as to seek to assist any others who may come fresh to this matter to analyse precisely what the situation is, as we understand it to be. These Appeals are dismissed.
