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 >> Bruce v. Northampton Borough Council [2000] UKEAT 751_99_2007 (20 July 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/751_99_2007.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 751_99_2007 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KEENE
MR P R A JACQUES CBE
MR T C THOMAS CBE
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
For the Appellant | MISS ELISABETH LAING (of Counsel) 11 King's Bench Walk Temple London EC4Y 7EQ |
For the Respondent | NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT |
MR JUSTICE KEENE: This is the restored hearing of an appeal by Mr V M S Bruce, a disabled person, against the decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Bedford and entered on the Register on 10th May 1999. The decision which is challenged was that any allowances which would be paid to the appellant for attendance before the tribunal be disallowed pursuant to Rule 12(4) of the Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993.
"Where, in the opinion of the tribunal, a party has in bringing or conducting the proceedings acted frivolously, vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably, the tribunal may make-
(a) an order containing an award against that party in respect of the costs incurred by another party;
(b) an order that that party shall pay to the Secretary of State the whole, or any part, of any allowances (other than allowances paid to members of tribunals) paid by the Secretary of State under paragraph 10 of Schedule 9 to the 1978 Act to any person for the purposes of, or in connection with, his attendance at the tribunal."
Paragraph 10 of Schedule 9 of the 1978 Act is now section 5 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Section 5(3) of the 1996 Act provides:
"The Secretary of State may pay to any other persons such allowances as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine for the purposes of, or in connection with, their attendance at employment tribunals."
Rule 12(4) of the 1993 Regulations deals with a situation where there is a postponement or an adjournment. It states:
"Where the tribunal has on the application of a party postponed the day or time fixed for or adjourned the hearing, the tribunal may make orders, of the kinds mentioned in paragraphs (1)(a) and (1)(b), against or, as the case may require, in favour of that party as respects any costs incurred or any allowances paid as a result of the postponement or adjournment."
"It appears to us that that cannot be the meaning of this sub rule, because it would make a nonsense of its purpose, given that it is almost in every case likely that the order arising out of the adjournment would be made on the occasion of the adjournment, and that it is wholly unlikely that the Secretary of State will, at that stage, have paid allowances which may not have been claimed for him, and are certainly unlikely to have been paid by him before the making of the order, and if that be right it would mean that on every occasion there would have to be an adjournment of an application for an order under this paragraph until after the allowances have been paid, which would only add to costs and inconvenience all round. We are satisfied therefore that the word "paid" must include the gerundive "to be paid" and that the Employment Tribunal was entirely right in the interpretation of the order that it made, and which is set out in the order which is at the very outset of their decision."