Sivanandan v London Borough Of Enfield & Ors

Permission to appeal from an Employment Appeal Tribunal decision may be granted only where the proposed appeal raises a question of law with a real prospect of success. An appeal concerning a tribunal’s discretionary case-management decision requires proof of an error of principle or that no reasonable tribunal could have reached the decision. The Court of Appeal will not interfere merely because it might have exercised the discretion differently. Employment tribunals have wide powers under the Employment Tribunal Rules to strike out proceedings conducted in a scandalous, frivolous or vexatious manner, provided the applicable procedure is followed and relevant matters are considered. A tribunal need not address every point raised if it has dealt with the principal issues and given adequate reasons.

The applicant brought claims against the respondents for race discrimination, victimisation, sex discrimination, unfair dismissal and breach of contract. The Employment Tribunal struck out the claims under rule 13 and later refused a review, including consideration of further medical evidence.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and refused permission for a further appeal, finding no error of law. The applicant applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal and sought to amend her grounds. The central questions were whether the Employment Tribunal had erred in law or improperly exercised its discretions in striking out the claims and refusing a review.

1. Permission refused. The proposed appeal had no real prospect of success. The Court of Appeal’s function was to identify a question of law arising from the Employment Tribunal’s decision, rather than to correct alleged errors in the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s judgment.
2. An appeal against the exercise of a discretion succeeds only where the tribunal made an error of principle or reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal could have reached. The fact that the Court of Appeal might have exercised the discretion differently was insufficient.
3. The Employment Tribunal had applied the relevant provisions of rule 13 of the Employment Tribunal Rules. Its powers to strike out were wide, and the tribunal had considered the relevant history, arguments and circumstances. Although striking out a case listed for a lengthy hearing, particularly in the applicant’s absence, was an exceptional and drastic course, it was legally available on the facts.
4. The refusal to review was also a proper exercise of discretion. The review application relied on the applicant’s absence, further medical evidence and the interests of justice. Those matters had been addressed in detail.
5. The Employment Appeal Tribunal was entitled to omit detailed treatment of points which were not among the principal issues. No tribunal is required to deal separately with every argument raised, provided that the material issues are addressed and intelligible reasons are given.

The application for permission to appeal was dismissed. The application to amend the grounds was consequently ineffective.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused permission to appeal against the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: on 23 July 2002, dismissed the appeal from the Employment Tribunal and refused permission for a further appeal.
• Employment Tribunal: struck out the claims in orders explained in extended reasons sent on 22 September 2000, and on 8 March 2001 refused a review.