[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Verma v Medway NHS Trust & Anor [1997] UKEAT 143_97_3001 (30 January 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/143_97_3001.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 143_97_3001

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


MR JUSTICE KIRKWOOD: Dr Verma has applied to this appeal tribunal for it to overturn a decision of the Chairman at the Ashford Industrial Tribunal refusing to postpone a directions hearing fixed to take place next Monday, 3rd February 1997. Dr Verma has appeared before us in person, and has represented her concerns very fully and cogently.

It is unnecessary and undesirable for me to say more than a word or two about the background. All the more so since the background and history of events is manifestly controversial, and we have not begun to delve into it.

But it appears that in the Summer of 1996, Dr Verma had some association with All Saints Hospital at Chatham and the Medway NHS Trust. Her complaint to the Industrial Tribunal under the Race Relations Act 1976 and alleging a breach of contract arises out of that association.

It appears that Dr Verma not only has that application in Ashford, but two applications to the Industrial Tribunal at London (North). It appears that the respondents to the Ashford case are the Medway NHS Trust and the General Medical Council. It appears that the respondents to the London cases include the General Medical Council.

An earlier request for a postponement of the directions hearing seems to have been allowed. In recent times the Commission for Racial Equality have been considering Dr Verma's case and whether they might take it up on her behalf. When the Chairman refused Dr Verma's application to postpone the hearing on 3rd February, the Commission for Racial Equality had not yet reached its determination but it has now done so and is not intending to take up Dr Verma's case.

Dr Verma's two points in the application to this appeal tribunal are essentially these. First, she contends that the Ashford case should be transferred to London to be joined together with the two London cases. Secondly, the decision of the Commission for Racial Equality which she became aware of something like five days ago, gives her a wholly inadequate chance to get legal representation for herself. She told us that she envisages legal representation under the Legal Aid scheme.

It is our understanding that the purpose of the Industrial Tribunal at Ashford in calling in the case for next Monday for directions is to give the parties the opportunity to sort out the best way of progressing Dr Verma's case; what is the best way to proceed from hereon with the conduct of that litigation.

It is, I think, generally well-known that Industrial Tribunals are intended to be and are informal tribunals and that they are very familiar indeed with hearing and determining fairly and justly the case of people who are not represented before them. Although Dr Verma feels vigorously that she needs legal representation on Monday, it seems to us that the wise course is to leave the fixture for 3rd February 1997 standing. Dr Verma will be able to tell the tribunal on Monday her anxiety to have the case moved to London, and we have noticed that one of the suggestions made by the General Medical Council is entirely in accord with that.

We also consider that Dr Verma, who we have heard this afternoon, will be able to convey to the Industrial Tribunal her desire to have time to see if she can find somebody to advise and represent her on any substantive application that is to be heard or any significant preliminary point that is to be taken, and that the Industrial Tribunal will fully understand her position in that regard.

Our decision is that the application to postpone the hearing on 3rd February should be refused for the reasons that I have indicated.