Hassan v Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust & Ors

Permission to appeal against interlocutory case-management decisions should generally be granted only where there is a plain error of law or an important point of law or practice. This threshold applies particularly where the decision has already been considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Dissatisfaction with adverse procedural rulings does not, without a proper basis, establish bias, lack of impartiality or denial of a fair hearing. Where the proposed grounds have no arguable merit, permission to appeal will be refused.

The applicant, an Austrian national of Egyptian origin, brought consolidated Employment Tribunal claims against his former NHS employer alleging discrimination, detriment and unfair dismissal under the Race Relations Act 1976. The proceedings remained at the case-management stage.

He appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal against interlocutory directions, including refusal to add respondents or raise new issues, a deposit order and decisions concerning recusal, disclosure and case management. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeals. The applicant sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, alleging bias, lack of impartiality and breach of Article 6.

1. Applications refused. Lord Justice Scott Baker held that none of the numerous grounds advanced had arguable merit.
2. The appeals concerned directions preparatory to the substantive hearing, not the merits of the applicant’s claims. The Court of Appeal would contemplate interfering with a case-management decision already considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal only where there was a plain error of law or an important point of law or practice.
3. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the agreed statement of issues fairly identified the matters for determination. The Employment Tribunal was also entitled, in the exercise of its case-management powers, to refuse the proposed addition of individual respondents and amendments raising new issues.
4. The complaints concerning recusal and bias disclosed no arguable error. The absence of recorded reasons for refusing recusal did not make the order erroneous in law. The allegations against both the Employment Tribunal chairman and the Employment Appeal Tribunal members had no proper basis. An adverse ruling, without more, did not establish apparent or unconscious bias.
5. The challenge to the £100 deposit order and related procedural directions likewise disclosed no arguable ground. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had recognised the chairman’s discretion concerning notice and regarded the deposit as nominal.
6. The applications for permission to appeal were therefore refused. The appellant was to be supplied with a transcript of the judgment at public expense.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2005] EWCA Civ 1781, Lord Justice Scott Baker refused all applications for permission to appeal.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal: The first two appeals were dismissed at an early stage. A further appeal was dismissed as misconceived and lacking merit. The appeals concerned interlocutory case-management decisions of the Employment Tribunal.