London United Busways Ltd v Mr Kamal Hamid Dankali
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Auerbach |
| Subject Matter | Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 21 September 2023 |
Judgment approved by the court London United Busways v Dankali
© EAT 2023 Page 1 [2023] EAT 123
Neutral Citation Number: [2023] EAT 123
Case No: EA-2021-001006-BA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 1 September 2023
Before :
HIS HONOUR JUDGE AUERBACH
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
LONDON UNITED BUSWAYS LIMITED Appellant
- and -
MR KAMAL HAMID DANKALI Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Edward Nuttman (solicitor, Ward Hadaway LLP) for the Appellant
No attendance or representation for the Respondent
Hearing date: 1 September 2023
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court London United Busways v Dankali
© EAT 2023 Page 2 [2023] EAT 123
SUMMARY
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
The claimant in the employment tribunal was identified in the claim form as being represented by his
trade union. The matter had been listed for a full merits hearing to take place in July 2021. In the
run-up to that hearing, the claimant’s representative wrote to the tribunal indicating that the last
contact with the claimant, at which point he was overseas, had been in February 2021, and that all
attempts to establish contact with him had failed. A judge directed that the full merits hearing be
postponed, and, subsequently, that there be a preliminary hearing to consider whether the claim
should be struck out.
During the course of the preliminary hearing the claimant’s representative stated that he had blanket
oral authority that enabled him to continue to conduct the claim on the claimant’s behalf in his
absence, including at trial. He confirmed that he had nothing in writing. He asked that the matter
proceed to a full hearing on that basis, and on the basis that the only witness for the claimant would
be his trade union representative. The respondent’s representative queried whether there could be a
valid oral authority to that effect, and invited the tribunal to direct that the claimant’s representative
give evidence which could be tested on oath or affirmation as to the terms of the agreement with the
claimant. The tribunal did not adopt that course. In reliance on the representative’s statement, it
decided to refuse the strike out application and to direct that the matter be relisted for a merits hearing
to proceed, whether or not in the continued absence of the claimant.
The respondent appealed.
Held: the tribunal had not erred by failing to consider whether the terms of the agreement between
the claimant and the representative might be contrary to the common law doctrine of maintenance or
champerty and hence unenforceable, with the consequence that there was no valid authority to
represent. However, it did err by proceeding in the way that it did, without taking further steps to
investigate and satisfy itself of the position. That was unfair to the respondent.
To continue reading
Request your trial