Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

British School of Motoring (BSM) v Fowler
Employment Appeal Tribunal - (24 February 2006)

Issues

(1) Employment Tribunal Proceedings
(2) Time Limits
(3) Costs

Facts

Mr Fowler, who had been employed as a Manager with BSM, presented complaints of unfair and wrongful dismissal. His employer was due to respond on 1st November 2005. However, no response was entered and consequently, on 5th December, the Tribunal made an Order that BSM could not participate further in the proceedings.

A representative of BSM wrote to the Tribunal a week later to advise that the original Tribunal papers had not been received and accordingly they had no idea of when the response was due. Whilst the 28 day time limit for an Employment Tribunal response is strictly applied, the Tribunal can hear an employer's application for their automatic barring to be reviewed. The Tribunal Chairman treated the letter as an Application for review and contacted Mr Fowler's Solicitors for their comment before dismissing the Application without a hearing. BSM appealed this decision. BSM argued that the Tribunal should have sought further views from BSM before deciding no review hearing was necessary. BSM considered this omission to be procedurally incorrect.

Decision

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) agreed that the Tribunal had not adequately weighed up the issues to be considered on review or given BSM sufficient opportunity for their comments. It ordered that the matter be returned to a new tribunal to hold a review of the matter to address whether BSM should be allowed to defend the Tribunal claim. However, the Tribunal went on to note that on the facts of the case, the appeal proceedings were unnecessarily caused by errors on the part of BSM and that they were therefore ordered to pay the Claimant's costs in full which equated to some £5,500.

Comments

This case highlights the importance of ensuring that the Tribunal claim is responded to within the requisite time limits. Whilst the employer in this case was successfully able to have the automatic barring reviewed, the EAT felt that the appeals were caused solely by the actions of the Employer which in this case cost them £5,000 before the substance of the complaint itself had ever been considered.

Rachel Billen - 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