Williams v Carmarthenshire County Council

An appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal lies only on a question of law. The appellate court cannot reopen factual disputes or permit witnesses to be called to establish the merits of an underlying employment complaint. Where an applicant seeks to revive proceedings concerning events more than two decades old, and identifies no error of law, the finality of litigation weighs decisively against granting permission. Sympathy for the applicant cannot enlarge the court’s jurisdiction or overcome the absence of any realistic prospect of success.

The applicant’s employment with the former Dyfed County Council ended in 1976 after he resigned in circumstances which he said amounted to constructive dismissal. His first application was withdrawn. A fresh application issued in 1978 was rejected because it had not been presented within a reasonable time after it became practicable to do so.

In 2000, the applicant issued a further application seeking to reopen the matter and to cross-examine witnesses. The Employment Tribunal dismissed it in March 2001. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed his appeal in October 2001 and refused a review in January 2002. The applicant sought permission to appeal out of time against both orders. The central issues were whether there was any arguable error of law and whether the proceedings could be reopened after such prolonged delay.

Both applications for permission to appeal were refused.

1. Appellate jurisdiction. The court’s jurisdiction over an appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal was confined to questions of law. The Employment Appeal Tribunal was itself a tribunal of law, not fact. The Court of Appeal therefore could not conduct a factual rehearing or permit the applicant to call witnesses, particularly merely to cross-examine the headmaster or representatives of his professional association.
2. No arguable error of law. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had correctly concluded that the Employment Tribunal had no choice but to dismiss the 2000 application. There was no possible basis for finding an error of law in either the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision or the underlying Employment Tribunal decision.
3. Finality and delay. The applicant sought to reopen events which had occurred more than twenty years earlier, following earlier proceedings and decisions in 1976 and 1978. Whatever the reasons for the delay, it was too late for the Court of Appeal to entertain the proposed appeal. The delay was not attributable to the respondent Council or the headmaster, and the principle that litigation must have an end reinforced the absence of any prospect of success.
4. Disposition. Although the court expressed sympathy for the applicant’s wish to restore his professional reputation, sympathy could not confer jurisdiction or justify permission. The applications were out of time and had no prospect whatever of success.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2002] EWCA Civ 1127, Lord Justice Clarke refused two out-of-time applications for permission to appeal.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal: An order dated 8 October 2001 dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the Employment Tribunal. An order dated 22 January 2002 refused a review.
3. Employment Tribunal: The applicant’s 2000 application was dismissed on 15 March 2001. Earlier proceedings had been withdrawn in 1976, and a fresh application was rejected in 1978 as out of time.