[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hopson v. Hi Way Express & Ors [2002] UKEAT 0892_01_1502 (15 February 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/0892_01_1502.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 0892_01_1502, [2002] UKEAT 892_1_1502

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR DAVID GREENE (Solicitor) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BURTON

1. This is the Preliminary Hearing of an appeal by Mr Hopson against the decision of the Chairman and members of the Leeds Employment Tribunal on 21 May 2001 striking out his claim, and that of a Mr S E Carter, under the provisions of Rule 4(7) and Rule 13(2)(e) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 as amended.
2. On a Preliminary Hearing of Mr Carter's appeal on 24 September 2001, Mr Carter was given permission to proceed with his appeal on limited grounds. This is the Preliminary Hearing of Mr Hopson's appeal. We take the view that, particularly as Mr Carter's appeal is in any event going forward, Mr Hopson's should go forward also on similarly limited grounds. We give leave in respect of paragraph 1 of his skeleton argument, which mirrors that of ground one of Mr Carter's amended grounds of appeal which were launched after, and in the light of, Mr Langstaff QC's judgment at the Preliminary Hearing, namely that the Tribunal erred in that it failed to comply with Rule 4(7) in relation to the tapes and transcripts. Secondly, a similar ground to that put forward by Mr Carter may be pursued by Mr Hopson, namely that strike out for failure to exchange witness statements was a disproportionate response.
3. In respect of the proposed third ground we consider it appropriate to break up what is a rather long conglomerate third ground in Mr Carter's amended grounds of appeal to create a third ground which is specific to Mr Hopson, there being no relevance to him, at any rate on the face of it, with regard to the status of Mrs Carter. The ground for which we give permission in Mr Hopson's case is whether the Tribunal was entitled to hold the 16 May 2001 letter against the Appellant. The fourth ground is similar to the rump of ground three of Mr Carter, relating to the fact that in the case of both Mr Carter and this Appellant no prior notice was given to them of the application to strike out. Certainly, there is no suggestion in the Decision that it was anything other than an application made on the day, and, whereas it is accepted that there was no requirement of prior notice with regard to an application to strike out by reference to Rule 13(2)(e), nevertheless Mr Carter has been given leave, and in the circumstances Mr Hopson ought to have leave also, to argue a ground which, in Mr Greene's submission, appearing today for Mr Hopson, is best described as follows: -

that the Tribunal failed to take into account, in relation to Rule 13(2)(e), that no notice of any such application had been given prior to the hearing to the Appellant.

4. That is the limited basis on which this appeal can go forward. We require an amended Notice of Appeal to be served within seven days, served on the Respondent and filed with the Court. The appropriate course is that there be a direction that this appeal and that of Mr Carter be heard together. It will not add to the length of time, nor will it change the category, so whatever category and time scale was assigned in relation to the Carter appeal will also apply in relation to this appeal.