Dacorum Sports Trust Limited (A company limited by guarantee) v Ms Rebecca Connolly (Environmental Health Officer, Dacorum Borough Council) — 2021

The claimant applied for a stay of its appeals against a Prohibition Notice and an Improvement Notice issued by Ms Rebecca Connolly, an Environmental Health Officer employed by Dacorum Borough Council. The application was heard on 11 December 2020 by Employment Judge Bedeau, sitting alone, and was refused. The tribunal noted that the reference to section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 would be removed from the Prohibition Notice, so the issues remaining for the substantive appeal would concern control under section 22 and the existence of a risk of serious personal injury, and whether there was a contravention of relevant statutory provisions for the Improvement Notice.

The tribunal accepted that there would be some overlap between the appeal proceedings and the anticipated criminal proceedings, including common witnesses and documentary material, but held that overlap alone was not enough to justify a stay. Applying the authorities cited in the judgment, it found that the claimant had not shown a real risk of serious prejudice leading to injustice if the appeal proceeded first. It also rejected the argument that disclosure in the tribunal would create a self-incrimination problem, because the evidence the claimant proposed to rely on was characterised as exculpatory rather than incriminating.

The tribunal said the burden lay on the claimant, as the party seeking the stay, to show why the respondent's right to have the appeal determined should be delayed. It took into account that the appeal was listed for 5 to 8 July 2021, while the criminal proceedings were expected later, and it held that the claimant had not shown sufficient prejudice to outweigh the normal case-management interest in proceeding with the tribunal hearing. The tribunal distinguished Mindimaxnox LLP v Gover and Ho and applied the balancing approach discussed in Akciné Bendrové Bankas Snoras (In bankruptcy) v Antonov, concluding that the stay should be refused.