________________

Case No: A2/2010/1314

Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCA Civ 1353

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

(HIS HONOUR JUDGE McMULLEN QC)

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: Monday, 15th November 2010

Before:

LORD JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON

• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

O'DRISCOLL (**Appellant)

**- and -

HERTFORDSHIRE PERSONAL ASSISTANCE SUPPORT SERVICE (Respondent)

• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(DAR Transcript of WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Appellant appeared in person.

The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.

• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment (As Approved)

Crown Copyright©

Lord Justice Stanley Burnton:

1. This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, consisting of HHJ McMullen QC, Mr Gibbs and Mr Mallender, which is dated 8 June 2010, the hearing of the Tribunal having taken place on 11 May 2010.

1. There is a history of proceedings in this case involving a hearing before the Employment Tribunal, a review of that decision by the Employment Tribunal and ultimately a decision by the Employment Appeal Tribunal itself. The applicant now seeks to appeal effectively on the basis that she was refused adjournments when serious findings of fact were made against her, which resulted in the rejection of her claim that she had been constructively dismissed through sex and race discrimination. That claim was dismissed as long ago as 4 July 2007.

1. The history is relatively complicated because the original Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction but nonetheless made serious findings of fact against the applicant which are the subject of her application today. But the matter has since been before the Employment Tribunal on its review, and before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. All her complaints were considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, who investigated whether or not she had had unjust and unfair hearings and indeed whether the Employment Tribunal had wrongfully refused to adjourn in order for her to obtain further documentation which she says would have established her claims.

1. One of the points being made by the Employment Appeal Tribunal is that before the Employment Tribunal there had been no application for an adjournment, and in that connection I refer to paragraph 35 of the judgment which refers to the fact that the hearing before the Tribunal has lasted some nine days. The Employment Appeal Tribunal carefully considered whether the present applicant had been treated unfairly and decided that there was no substance in that.

1. It seems to me that all the matters that are now being put forward really are matters of fact which were considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I can see no arguable basis for this court, which is concerned only with issues of law, coming to a conclusion that it could possibly interfere with that decision. Therefore, though I understand that the applicant feels greatly aggrieved by the decision that was made, it seems to me there is really no basis on which this court could interfere with that decision.

1. Therefore I refuse her application.

Order: Application refused.