Background:

The claimant brought a claim to the Tribunal relating to Race Discrimination and Victimisation. This followed his response to an advertisement from the respondent for the role of packer at a meat plant.  This required the claimant to provide his passport and long birth certificate.  This was the requirement of the employer and required by all applicants irrespective of their race.  This was agreed by the claimant in writing and he no longer advanced his claim of less favourable treatment on the basis of race.

The claimant continued with a claim of victimisation relating to a claim of 2014 against the respondent on the basis of age discrimination.  The 2014 claim was dismissed as being out of time. The claimant stated it was a protected act. The Tribunal, at first instance, dismissed the claim.  The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Outcome:

The ‘Grounds of Appeal’ lodged by the claimant stated:

‘Points of law around procedural unfairness/irregularity – perverse rulings – abuse of process – predetermined bias – irrelevant facts/figures considered – relevant facts/figures not considered – errors in law/application of law.’

McCloskey LJ outlined the prolix response of the claimant running to some 70 pages of text.  It was further outlined that by Article 22 of the Industrial Tribunals (NI) Order 1996 an appeal can arise where a party is dissatisfied in point of law.  It was further outlined that where a party is unrepresented the Court of Appeal will scrupulously endeavour to determine whether any proper grounds are advanced.  On this point, the ‘limited’ relevant aspects of the claimant’s written materials are a mere disagreement with the findings of the Tribunal and have no place in an appeal on points of law only.  As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

McCloskey LJ helpfully provided some guidance on whether an appeal should be dismissed summarily.   Under Order 59, Rule 10(1) of the Rules of the Court of Judicature read in conjunction with Order 18, Rule 19 there is such power that can be exercised by the Court of Appeal.  Whilst not engaged in this appeal, McCloskey L did outline that if the court had followed a different procedural course then the case would have been dismissed summarily due to the lack of coherent or potentially sustainable grounds of appeal.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

The substance of the appeal provides very little in terms of learning points considering the lack of legal points made by the appellant.  However, the helpful guidance of McCloskey LJ on the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to dismiss cases summarily may be useful where you are responding to an appeal without any coherent or sustainable grounds of appeal.  As a result, it may well be argued before the Court of Appeal that such power should be exercised to avoid a lengthy and potentially costly appeal hearing.