ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
B e f o r e:
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS
( Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers )
LORD JUSTICE WALLER
and
LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
JOHN BOTHAM
Appellant
- v -
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Respondent
(Computer Aided Transcription by
Smith Bernal, 190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD
Telephone 020 7421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR F REYNOLD QC and MR P MEAD (instructed by Messrs Simpson Millar, Wimbledon SW19) appeared on behalf of THE APPELLANT
MRS WENDY ALTWAITE (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of THE RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
Monday, 14 March 2005
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS: We make it plain that, in giving leave to appeal to the House of Lords, we are not inferentially finding that the decision is wrong, we are simply reflecting the fact that their Lordships have themselves given leave to appeal in what is essentially a carbon copy case.
MR REYNOLD: Yes.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS: We are simply applying a leap-frog remedy.
MR REYNOLD: Yes.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS: Very well. This appeal will be dismissed by consent, but the application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords will be granted for the reasons that we have expressed.
MR REYNOLD: I am grateful to your Lordship. Whether this is an appropriate moment or not I do not know, the appellant is legally aided. I am not sure whether the usual order would apply, notwithstanding that the appeal has been dismissed as it were by consent?
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS: Mr Reynold, we are inclined to think that the appropriate order would be that costs should follow the result in the House of Lords, but you would need a legal aid taxation.
MR REYNOLD: Yes, I am very grateful.
ORDER: (Not part of judgment)
Appeal dismissed by consent; leave to appeal to the House of Lords granted; costs to follow result of appeal; community legal services assessment of appellant’s costs.