ALM Medical Services Ltd v Bladon

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns an application by Company A (ALM (Medical Services) Limited) for permission to appeal and an extension of time to appeal against a decision involving the dismissal of an employee, referred to as Plaintiff, who was employed as a charge nurse between June and September 1999. The Plaintiff had brought a claim for unfair dismissal before the Employment Tribunal on 20th September 1999. On 10th July 2001, Lord Justice Mummery heard multiple applications for permission to appeal, including that of Company A. Permission to appeal was granted with an extension of time. Subsequent confusion arose from an order dated 16th July 2001, which did not accurately reflect the judge's intention regarding the scope of permission to appeal and related procedural directions. The appeal grounds included allegations of denial of a fair hearing, perceived bias by the Tribunal Chairman, and misdirection on relevant law, including the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1993. The court clarified the scope of permission and directed the Tribunal Chairman to respond to allegations of bias and conduct, referencing affidavits submitted by Company A and a third party, within a specified timeframe.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Employment Tribunal denied the Plaintiff a full and fair hearing by refusing to allow crucial witnesses to be called.
2. Whether the Chairman of the Employment Tribunal conducted the hearing in a fair and balanced manner or demonstrated bias against Company A.
3. Whether the Chairman misdirected himself on the law relating to unfair dismissal and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1993.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court identified that the original order did not accurately reflect the judge's intention regarding the permission to appeal. The judge acknowledged responsibility for this confusion and clarified that permission was granted on all grounds, particularly emphasizing the statutory interpretation issues related to unfair dismissal and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1993, while expressing skepticism about the likelihood of success on allegations concerning the Tribunal Chairman's conduct. To address the allegations of bias and unfair conduct, the court directed the Chairman to provide detailed comments on two affidavits submitted by Company A and a third party, including addressing a new allegation of potential bias due to the Chairman's prior professional connections. The court declined to order production of the Chairman's entire hearing notes, reasoning that such notes were unlikely to shed significant light on the allegations, especially given a prior Appeal Tribunal order deeming the notes unnecessary. The judge set a one-month deadline for the Chairman's response to ensure procedural fairness and clarity on the contested issues.

Holding and Implications

Permission to appeal was granted on all grounds, with an extension of time, and procedural directions were made for the Tribunal Chairman to respond to allegations of bias and conduct.

The direct effect of this decision is to allow the appeal to proceed on the stated grounds and to require the Tribunal Chairman to address specific allegations, thereby ensuring a fair appellate process. The opinion does not establish any new precedent but clarifies the procedural approach to addressing allegations of bias and misdirection in Employment Tribunal appeals.