[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Chapman v. Hume [2002] UKEAT 1016_01_2801 (28 January 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1016_01_2801.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1016_1_2801, [2002] UKEAT 1016_01_2801

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Mr N Chapman (Representative)


 


MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC

1. This case comes to us by way of Preliminary Hearing from a decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at Ashford. Extended Reasons were promulgated on the 19 June 2001.
2. It seems to us that there is here an arguable point of law. It is a short one. The Tribunal reached the decision it did in the absence of the Respondent. Rule 9 (3) of the 1993 Procedure Rules, provides that if a party fails to attend or to be represented the Tribunal may dispose of the application in the absence of that party, provided that, and this is the important proviso and I quote it in full,

"Before dismissing or disposing of any application in the absence of a party the Tribunal shall consider his Originating Application or Notice of Appearance, any representations in writing presented by him in pursuance of Rule 8 (5) and any written answer furnished to the Tribunal pursuant to Rule 4 (3)"

3. We can see no obvious sign from the decision of the Tribunal that the Tribunal considered the contents of the Respondents Notice of Appearance, or, for that matter, any of the material put before them by the Respondent. The case therefore seems to raise the issues whether or not the Tribunal was bound, so to do, in the circumstances of this case; whether, if they are bound so to do, they should have recorded that they had done so, and whether any failure to record that they had done so in any way vitiates the decision to which the Tribunal came.
4. We do not ourselves express any view as to what the ultimate resolution of those issues

should be. That will be for the Tribunal to determine, once it has heard from both the Appellant and the Respondent.

5. Directions are that the case be listed in category C, with a time estimate of 2 hours. Skeleton arguments, which deal with the issue only to be filed no less than seven days prior to the hearing, together at the same time with photocopies of any cases upon which either party proposes to rely.