Patel v Texaco Ltd

A tribunal must keep evidence, cross-examination and argument within the strict legal issues, for represented and unrepresented parties alike. Unequal resources do not themselves establish an unfair hearing. Procedural unfairness requires hard evidence of an improper procedural act with clearly adverse impact, or an omission which would probably have produced a different result, amounting to a fundamental denial of justice. Appellate tribunals decide questions of law and do not re-evaluate facts. Permission to appeal was refused.

Smita Patel brought claims against Texaco Limited for unfair dismissal, discrimination, victimisation and equal pay. Following a 13-day Employment Tribunal hearing, she alleged that the hearing had been unfair, particularly because Texaco served substantial witness statements shortly before the hearing and the tribunal chair restricted her cross-examination.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected her complaints at a without-notice preliminary consideration hearing on 18 January 2002. Patel applied in person to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. The central issues were whether the alleged procedural matters amounted to a fundamental denial of justice and whether the proposed appeal raised an arguable question of law.

1. Application dismissed. Permission to appeal was refused because there was no reasonable prospect of establishing procedural unfairness or an error of law.
2. A tribunal must keep evidence, cross-examination and argument directed to the strict legal issues. This duty applies equally to represented parties and litigants in person. Equality of treatment does not require equality of arms, and disparity in legal resources is not, without more, procedural unfairness.
3. Procedural unfairness requires hard evidence of a procedural act which should not have occurred and which had a clearly adverse impact, or of an omission which would in all probability have led to a different outcome. The defect must amount to a fundamental denial of justice.
4. The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to questions of law. It cannot re-evaluate evidence or substitute its findings of fact for those of the Employment Tribunal, which is the sole finder of fact.
5. New evidential complaints not raised before the Employment Appeal Tribunal were generally too late. The alleged comment concerning an Asian community in Brick Lane, considered in context, did not demonstrate bias.
6. The formal order was that the application for permission to appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 10 April 2002, the application for permission to appeal was dismissed.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: On 18 January 2002, the proposed appeal was rejected at a without-notice preliminary consideration hearing.
• Employment Tribunal: After a 13-day hearing in 2000, the tribunal determined claims concerning unfair dismissal, discrimination, victimisation and equal pay.