Reeves v London Borough Of Havering & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for leave to appeal a decision made by the Chairman of an Industrial Tribunal at Stratford on 22 June 1998. The Tribunal had struck out the Applicant's entire complaint as frivolous and vexatious, ordering the Applicant to pay costs to the Respondents. The Applicant, acting in person, had originally been employed as a mathematics teacher until his employment terminated on 31 August 1997. His claim was characterised as a breach of contract of employment, largely related to the failure to be appointed or given the opportunity to apply for the head of mathematics department post at the school. The Tribunal Chairman dealt with the Respondents’ application to strike out the complaint and the Applicant’s applications to strike out the Respondents’ notices of appearance as preliminary issues rather than proceeding to a full hearing initially scheduled for ten days.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal Chairman was entitled to deal with the strike-out application and related preliminary issues before a full merits hearing.
2. Whether the equal opportunities policy of the Respondents was incorporated as a term of the Applicant’s contract of employment.
3. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the allegation that the Head of the School acted ultravires the Education Reform Act 1988.
4. Whether the Applicant’s complaint that the governing body failed to advertise the vacancy for the head of mathematics post gave rise to a private law right for breach of contract.
5. Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to strike out the Respondents’ Notices of Appearance.
6. Whether the Tribunal Chairman properly exercised discretion in awarding costs against the Applicant on the basis that the claim was frivolous or vexatious.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Applicant contended that it was improper and erroneous for the Tribunal Chairman to proceed by way of strike-out hearing in a complex case rather than a full merits hearing.
• The Applicant argued that he was taken by surprise by the Tribunal’s approach and was disadvantaged as a litigant in person, including an alleged reversal of the burden of proof.
• The Applicant claimed that the Respondents’ equal opportunities policy should be incorporated into his contract either directly or via the school teachers pay and conditions document, entitling him to the opportunity to apply for the post.
• The Applicant submitted that the Tribunal erred by failing to consider material arguments related to the pay and conditions document.
• The Applicant argued that the Tribunal should have struck out the Respondents’ Notices of Appearance due to their alleged procedural defaults.
• The Applicant challenged the award of costs against him as inappropriate given the serious points raised and heavy litigation over many months.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Respondents maintained that the Tribunal Chairman was entitled to deal with preliminary issues by strike-out hearing as a matter of discretion.
• They argued that the equal opportunities policies were aspirational statements and not apt to be incorporated as contractual terms.
• The Respondents contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider allegations that the Head of School acted ultravires the Education Reform Act 1988, as this was a matter for judicial review.
• They submitted that the Notices of Appearance were properly maintained and that the Applicant had not suffered any disadvantage from any delay in written submissions.
• The Respondents supported the award of costs on the basis that the claim was without legal foundation and frivolous or vexatious.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Alexander v Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd [1991] IRLR 286	Determining whether an employer’s policy is apt to be incorporated as a term of an employment contract.	The Tribunal Chairman applied this precedent to conclude that the equal opportunities policy was aspirational and not contractual language, thus not incorporated into the Applicant’s contract.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by affirming that the Tribunal Chairman was entitled to exercise her discretion to deal with strike-out applications and preliminary issues before a full hearing, rejecting the Applicant’s contention that this approach was improper or perverse. The court examined the nature of the Applicant’s claim, focusing particularly on the alleged incorporation of the equal opportunities policy into the contract of employment. Applying the tests established in precedent, the court agreed with the Tribunal Chairman that the policy statements were general aspirational statements and not apt to be terms of the contract. The court acknowledged the Applicant’s argument regarding incorporation via the pay and conditions document but held that the same reasoning applied, and those claims must stand or fall with the main equal opportunities policy claim.

Regarding the allegation that the Head of School acted ultravires the Education Reform Act 1988, the court recognized the Tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction but noted that there appeared to be an arguable point concerning a statutory obligation on the governing body to advertise the vacancy. The court granted leave to appeal on this narrow issue for full consideration at an Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing.

The court also upheld the Tribunal Chairman’s discretion in refusing to strike out the Respondents’ Notices of Appearance, finding it would have been illogical to strike out both the Applicant’s claim and the Respondents’ appearances. Finally, the court considered the costs order and found it arguable that the claim was not frivolous or vexatious given the serious points raised and the anticipated lengthy hearing, thus granting leave to appeal on the costs issue as well.

Holding and Implications

The court granted limited leave to appeal on two specific issues: (1) whether the Tribunal erred in not considering in detail the alleged breach of statutory duty under the Education Reform Act 1988 and its potential contractual consequences, and (2) whether the costs order against the Applicant was appropriate. The court refused leave to appeal on all other grounds, including the manner in which the Tribunal conducted the strike-out hearing, the incorporation of equal opportunities policies into the contract, and the refusal to strike out the Respondents’ Notices of Appearance.

The direct effect of this decision is to allow a limited appeal focused narrowly on statutory breach and costs, without setting new precedent on the broader issues of strike-out procedure or incorporation of policy documents. The majority of the Tribunal’s original decision remains undisturbed.