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 £5, 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 >> Melville v Secretary Of State For Employment [1996] UKEAT 1233_95_1305 (13 May 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/1233_95_1305.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 1233_95_1305 |
||
[New search] [Help]
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE Q.C.
MRS T A MARSLAND
MR A D SCOTT
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE
Revised
APPEARANCES
NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
JUDGE HARGROVE Q.C.: This is a matter which no party appears.
The Tribunal decided on 29th August 1995 that the application then being made should be dismissed.
Since that time there has been a further application alleging that there was bias, namely that the Chairman knew the appellant and had an employer/employee relationship with the woman later married to the appellant and that the Chairman also knew Mr Ivor Jones whose name was mentioned during the hearing. Mr Jones was the appellant's employer before the appellant set up his own business. There are various other allegations about the Chairman's handling of the case, but those are the most important matters.
We have had the benefit of a letter from the Chairman and an affidavit from the appellant. It is quite clear what happened, that the appellant was not recognised by the Chairman, no application was made at the time by those representing the appellant, and the basis upon which the relationship was said to have existed is this: that some 26 years ago the appellants was in a relationship with and eventually married the lady who acted as au pair to the Chairman's children. The further allegation that he knew Mr Jones was also a matter could have been raised at the time and was not. Mr Jones's evidence anyway was about background information.
Putting the best possible interpretation one can upon the allegations that have been made, bearing in mind that this court always considers seriously any question of bias, one is obliged to refer to these grounds of appeal as totally fatuous. There is no arguable point of law here, and the case is dismissed.
