[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hamm v. Wear Valley District Council [1999] UKEAT 594_99_2910 (29 October 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/594_99_2910.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 594_99_2910

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Mr M Hamm (In person)


 


JUDGE WILSON:

1. This is the preliminary hearing of the appellants appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting in Newcastle upon Tyne, by which his originating application was struck out on the grounds that it was frivolous and vexatious. That decision was made pursuant to rule 13(2)(e) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993.
2. The appellant has appeared in person today, as he appeared in person before the Tribunal, at which he gave sworn testimony to show why his application should not be struck out. He had made the application on the 19 October 1998, claiming that the respondent's failure to call him for interview in respect of an application for employment, which he had made, amounted either to sexual, racial or disability discrimination or all three, and also victimisation.
3. The appellant has, on six previous occasions, launched similar proceedings on similar grounds, and in the course of the extended reasons, the Tribunal set out the history of those matters. In particular, they referred to a letter of the 18 September 1990, from Mr Morgan, on behalf of the respondent, which set out in terms why any application for employment would not be processed. A second document to which the Tribunal referred was a letter of 16 July 1992, from the respondent's head of administration, again setting out the reasons why the appellant was deemed unsuitable for employment, and referring to the appellants own letter which recognised that merit includes aspects such as character, attitude, aptitude and ability. The extended reasons go on in Paragraph 4 to summarise position saying that

"Each of the applications (made by the appellant) have been in similar form".

4. Before us today the appellant has referred us to his case which came before Mr J R Barton as Chairman and two members on the 1 & 2 July 1996 and went to a full hearing. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal on that occasion, was that the respondent had not been discriminated against and that decision was not appealed. A previous case had been appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed by the President on the 16 March 1995.
5. What it comes to is this. The reason given by the respondent is one which is not accepted by the appellant as being a good or true reason. Nevertheless, however that may be, it is not within the ambit of an Employment Tribunal to decide that issue. What they have to decide is whether the reason comes within one or another of the statutes, upon which the appellant claims to rely. In every case the decision has been that there is no substance in what the appellant is claiming the Employment Tribunal so decided in the case under appeal.
6. The jurisdiction under Rule 13(2)(e) is a discretionary one. We have to be satisfied that all the preliminary steps have been properly taken. There is no complaint that there is any short-coming in those preliminaries, and we are so satisfied. So far as the discretion is concerned, it is not for this Tribunal to go behind the exercise of the discretion by the Employment Tribunal, and we can find no fault with the way they went about their task, or the conclusion to which they came.
7. Accordingly, this application has no prospect of success, and must be dismissed at this stage.