Rowe v Halsall (t/a Malvern Nursing Home) (Practice and Procedure : Case Management)

An appeal may be dismissed under rule 26 where an appellant fails to comply with clear directions for the conduct of the hearing and thereby makes a fair hearing impossible.

Independently, an appeal should not proceed under rule 3 if it discloses no reasonable legal ground or its pursuit is an abuse of the Employment Appeal Tribunal's process. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has no jurisdiction under section 21 of the Employment Tribunals Act where no point of law is raised.

The claimant appealed against an Employment Tribunal judgment dismissing her claims and against the refusal of a review application made out of time. At a rule 3(10) hearing, the claimant did not advance legal submissions, refused the judge's directions concerning the hearing bundles, behaved abusively, and left the hearing.

The central issues were whether the appeal disclosed a reasonable point of law and whether it could properly continue in view of the claimant's conduct.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The claimant failed to comply with clear directions given for the conduct of the hearing. She was permitted to use any of the available bundles and to identify documents on which she relied, but did neither and walked out. Her conduct made a fair hearing impossible. The judge therefore exercised the power to dismiss the appeal under rule 26.

2. The dismissal was independently justified under rule 3. The Employment Appeal Tribunal's jurisdiction is confined by section 21 of the Employment Tribunals Act to appeals raising a point of law. The claimant's materials challenged factual findings and did not identify an error of law. The Employment Tribunal had directed itself correctly on the fact-sensitive claims, and there was no reasonable prospect of success.

3. It was open to the Employment Judge to refuse an extension of time for a review because an extension was not just and equitable. No legal basis was advanced for interfering with that decision.

4. The claimant's conduct also amounted to an abuse of the Employment Appeal Tribunal's process. In light of repeated warnings in the Employment Tribunal and her conduct at the appeal hearing, the proceedings were being used for a collateral purpose rather than the proper determination of an appeal. The application and the underlying appeal would therefore have been dismissed on that further ground.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Dismissed the claimant's appeal under rule 26 and, independently, under rule 3.
• Employment Tribunal: Dismissed the claimant's substantive claims. It later refused a review application as out of time and declined to extend time because that was not just and equitable.