ALM Medical Services Limited v Bladon

An appellate court may correct an order under the slip rule where it does not accurately record the order actually intended. Permission to appeal may be granted on all grounds while the court expresses a provisional view that some grounds have little prospect of success. Where an appeal alleges that an employment tribunal hearing was unfair or affected by apparent bias, the court may direct the tribunal chairman to comment on the allegations, using contemporaneous notes where necessary. A complete transcription of those notes need not be ordered where it is unlikely to assist materially.

ALM Medical Services Limited appealed from the Employment Appeal Tribunal in proceedings arising from Mr Bladon’s unfair-dismissal claim. The appellant sought permission to appeal, an extension of time, permission to adduce new evidence and production of the tribunal chairman’s notes. Its grounds alleged that crucial witnesses had been excluded, that the chairman had conducted the hearing unfairly and appeared biased, and that the tribunal had misdirected itself on unfair dismissal and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1993.

Permission had been granted and time extended at an earlier hearing, but the sealed order inaccurately recorded the scope of permission. The central procedural issues were the correction of that order and the appropriate method of investigating the allegations concerning the chairman.

Per Lord Justice Mummery:

1. The order entered on 16 July 2001 did not correctly record the order intended at the earlier hearing. The confusion arose from the way the permission application had been recorded. The order was therefore to be amended under the slip rule. Permission to appeal was intended to have been granted on all three grounds, including the complaints concerning the conduct of the hearing, although the court had expressed a pessimistic view of the prospects of those grounds succeeding.
2. The statutory grounds concerning the interpretation and application of the unfair-dismissal provisions and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1993 provisions provided sufficient reason for granting permission. The court’s adverse provisional view of the procedural complaints did not restrict the permission actually granted.
3. The appropriate course for dealing with the allegations about unfairness, bias and apparent bias was to direct the tribunal chairman to provide comments on the allegations contained in affidavits sworn by Dr Matta and Mr Sinclair. The chairman was to refresh his memory by reference to his notes and quote from them where he considered that necessary. He was also directed to address the allegation that, before appointment, he had practised as a solicitor for a firm acting for UNISON, which was identified as Mr Bladon’s representative.
4. A complete transcription of the chairman’s notes was unnecessary. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, it was doubtful that transcription would materially assist the court. An earlier Employment Appeal Tribunal order had found the notes unnecessary, but the same information supplied in the later affidavits had not then been available.

Orders were made in accordance with the judgment, with costs to be costs in the appeal.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2001] EWCA Civ 1846, the order was amended to reflect the permission actually granted. Directions were made for comments by the Employment Tribunal chairman, and costs were reserved to the appeal.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal: The matter came before the Court of Appeal on appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal. No citation or final outcome of the Employment Appeal Tribunal decision is stated in the judgment.