In Person For the v Respondent — 2018

This was a preliminary hearing about a Prohibition Notice issued on 16 February 2018 concerning the claimant’s go-karting track at Lightwater Dirt Track. The claimant, Mr H Bell, said the notice was flawed and sought to have it quashed. The respondent, Surrey Heath Borough Council, explained that the track was an unusual dirt track and that it had relied on its own inspection and reports from others in assessing safety requirements.

By the time of the hearing, the parties had been in negotiations and Mr Bell had carried out some works. The tribunal found that the respondent was then satisfied that the track could be used and had closed the Prohibition Notice, although it remained under review and a further notice might be issued in future. Because the notice that was the subject of the appeal had been overtaken by events, the tribunal considered the appeal largely academic.

The tribunal therefore stayed the appeal rather than hearing it substantively. It said that, if a further Prohibition Notice were issued, either party could apply to lift the stay, and it anticipated that any future appeal might be consolidated with the present case. The tribunal also noted that a substantive hearing would likely require experts, a site inspection, and significant tribunal resources.

The tribunal observed that Mr Bell might have civil law claims if he wished to challenge the respondent’s conduct, but said those were not matters the employment tribunal could determine. Its role in this case was limited to deciding whether the Prohibition Notice should be upheld, quashed, or varied, and no such substantive determination was made because the notice had already been closed.