Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Atos Origin IT Services UK Ltd v Haddock
Employment Appeal Tribunal - (21 July 2004)

Issues

(1) Tribunal Proceedings
(2) Disability Discrimination
(3) Rules of Procedure

Facts

Mr Haddock had been employed by Atos from 1983 as a Computer Engineer. By 1997 he had progressed to Sales Manager. Then in 1998 he was off work for 6 months with a depressive illness thereafter returning to work part-time in a senior but less demanding position. He was making good progress. In January 1999 he was informed by a new Manager that he was to be moved to a different post. Mr Haddock was extremely depressed by this news and developed a depressive illness which did not respond to treatment. He was unable to return to work although he remained an Atos employee.

One of the benefits of his employment was that he was covered by a permanent health insurance scheme which provided that in the event of permanent incapacity for work, Atos could reclaim up to 75% of Mr Haddock’s salary from the insurers provided that he remained an employee, continued to be permanently incapacitated and had not reached normal retiring age. Accordingly Mr Haddock continued to receive 100% of his salary from Atos of which they were able to recover 75% from the insurers.

Mr Haddock made a claim to the Employment Tribunal of disability discrimination. Atos did not enter a notice of appearance and accordingly the Tribunal proceeded to hear the claim without any evidence from Atos. The Tribunal found in Mr Haddock’s favour and awarded him compensation of £35,000.00 for psychiatric injury, £20,000.00 for injury to feelings and £10,000.00 as aggravated damages.

Following receipt of the Tribunal’s decision ATOS wished to appeal the Tribunal’s decision and at this point the issue arose as to whether ATOS was precluded from appealing on the basis that it had not entered a notice of appearance before the Employment Tribunal as required by Rule 3 of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993.

Decision

The EAT allowed the appeal stating that Atos’ failure to enter a notice of appearance to the complaint did not preclude them from appealing to the EAT against the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation.

It was noted that whilst the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure state that a Respondent who has not entered an appearance is not entitled to take part in proceedings, this has no bearing on any subsequent appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. These questions are dealt with by separate regulations dedicated specifically to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and there is nothing in those regulations which restricts the rights of Respondents who have not entered a notice of appearance in Employment Tribunal to participate in a subsequent appeal.

Comments

The Employment Tribunal’s (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 like the Rules of Procedure in this case provide that a Respondent who has not entered a response to a claim will not be allowed to take part in the proceedings. However the new Rules have introduced a system of default judgment which allows Tribunals to determine a case without a hearing if an employer has failed to comply with the relevant time limit to present a response.

This case clarifies the position with respect to subsequent appeals highlighting that the Employment Appeal Tribunal is governed by separate Rules in which there is no provision restricting employers in appealing pre-decisions of the Tribunal even though they were never involved in the proceedings themselves.


Rachel Bickle – Associate Solicitor, Commercial Department at Veitch Penny.
Tel: 01392 278381, Fax: 01392 410247, Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it