Vytelingum v Camden & Islington Community Health NHS Trust

Permission to appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal requires a real prospect of success. The proposed appeal must identify an error of law; dissatisfaction with factual findings is insufficient. Where an Employment Tribunal has considered the evidence, followed a fair procedure and reached conclusions it was entitled to reach, the Court of Appeal will not interfere. Claims that were out of time need not be adjudicated. The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction, on such an appeal, to compel parties to settle disputed payment claims. Generalised and non-particularised allegations of human-rights breaches do not establish an appealable procedural or legal irregularity where the applicant received full hearings before impartial tribunals with reasoned decisions.

Mr Caryl Vytelingum, a senior clerical officer, was dismissed for misconduct after disciplinary proceedings concerning a patient telephone call and earlier warnings. The Employment Tribunal dismissed his claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination and dismissal by reason of trade-union activities. It also treated additional payment claims as out of time.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed his appeal, finding no error of law and declining to adjudicate the out-of-time claims. Mr Vytelingum applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal, alleging procedural irregularities, statutory and human-rights breaches, and continuing disputes over payments. The central issue was whether the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success.

Application refused. Lord Justice Mummery held that the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success.

1. An appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal could succeed only if an error of law in the Employment Tribunal’s decision were shown. There was no appeal on questions of fact. The Employment Tribunal had made findings on the evidence and reached conclusions which it was entitled to reach.
2. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to rule the disputed payment claims out of time. It had adjudicated on the unfair-dismissal matters included in the original and amended applications. Its decision not to adjudicate on claims which were out of time disclosed no error of law.
3. The Court of Appeal could not determine the disputed payment claim on this application and had no jurisdiction to compel the parties to settle on terms proposed by the opposing party.
4. The complaints concerning the Human Rights Act 1998 and Convention rights were generalised and non-particularised. The papers showed full hearings before impartial tribunals, with the evidence considered and reasoned decisions given. No substantial legal irregularity or ground of appeal was established.
5. Permission would therefore serve no useful purpose because the full appeal was bound to fail. The application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for permission to appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal refused: [2001] EWCA Civ 727.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed on the ground that the Employment Tribunal had made no error of law. The Tribunal also held that the disputed payment claims were out of time.
3. Employment Tribunal: Claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination and dismissal by reason of trade-union activities dismissed. Additional payment claims were not adjudicated because they were out of time.