Roberts v National Union of Journalists

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed appeal has no substance and has no reasonable prospect of success. The court may consider the procedural history, including prior decisions on venue, disclosure directions, late documents and adjournment requests, in assessing whether an appeal warrants a full hearing. A party’s decision not to attend does not require a further adjournment where the application can fairly be determined and the proposed appeal is plainly unmeritorious.

The applicant brought proceedings before the Employment Tribunal concerning disciplinary action and expulsion from membership of the National Union of Journalists. The Employment Tribunal ordered him to provide a list of documents and permit inspection. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed his interlocutory appeal, declining to reopen the venue issue, upholding the disclosure order, finding no prejudice from the late delivery of the respondent’s skeleton argument, and refusing costs.

The applicant sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. He raised complaints concerning disclosure, venue, delay, alleged bias, late documents and adjournments. The central issue was whether the proposed appeal had a reasonable prospect of success.

1. Application refused. Lord Justice Kennedy held that the proposed appeal had no substance and disclosed no point which could reasonably lead to a successful appeal hearing before the Court of Appeal.
2. The application was considered against the procedural history. The Employment Tribunal’s order of 31 July 2001 required the applicant to provide a list of documents and allow inspection. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had held that the Employment Tribunal possessed power to make that order and had been right to do so. Any need for additional time was a matter for an application to extend time.
3. The proposed grounds also concerned the venue of the applicant’s substantive applications, alleged delay, alleged bias, and the late delivery of the National Union of Journalists’ skeleton argument and documents. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had treated the venue issue as already determined, refused an extension of time, and found that the late skeleton argument caused no prejudice. It had also refused the union’s application for costs.
4. The applicant had repeatedly sought adjournments. His latest request had been refused, and he chose not to attend the hearing. The court proceeded to determine the permission application in his absence because the history showed that a further hearing would serve no useful purpose and the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success.
5. The formal order was: Application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 22 March 2002, Lord Justice Kennedy refused permission to appeal. [2002] EWCA Civ 514
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: On 6 September 2001, dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory appeal from the Employment Tribunal’s disclosure order and refused costs.
• Employment Tribunal: On 31 July 2001, ordered the applicant to provide a list of documents and permit inspection.