Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Uzoma v London Borough Of Tower Hamlets [1993] UKEAT 230_92_3003 (30 March 1993)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/230_92_3003.html
Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 230_92_3003
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J PEPPITT QC
MR D O GLADWIN CBE
MISS A MACKIE OBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant IN PERSON
JUDGE PEPPITT QC: This is the Preliminary Hearing of an appeal by Mr Uzoma from a decision of the North London Industrial Tribunal rejecting his complaints of racial discrimination against the Respondents. The hearing before the Industrial Tribunal extended over a period of some ten days. The decision is contained in ten closely typewritten pages.
Mr Uzoma who has conducted this hearing on his own behalf as he did the hearing in the Tribunal below, complains of three main areas of error by the Tribunal. Firstly he said that the Tribunal arrived at conclusions of fact which were so bizarre that they can properly be regarded as perverse in the sense that no reasonable Tribunal could have reached them. Secondly he says that in a number of respects the Tribunal misdirected themselves as to the law which they should apply to his complaints and thirdly he says that the Tribunal either were or gave the appearance of being biased towards him at intervals throughout the hearing.
Those complaints are particularised in Mr Uzoma's Notice of Appeal which all of us have read. He put before us the bundle of documents before the Tribunal running to some 124 pages, plus a small bundle of additional documents which he provided for our use. We have been through both bundles of documents. We have given this matter very careful consideration, not least because Mr Uzoma does not have the benefit of legal representation; we have considered his allegations of error as to the facts, his allegations of misdirection and his allegations of bias. So far as the latter is concerned we should say that in that connection we have had the benefit of a letter from the Tribunal Chairman dated 12 May 1992 and from one of the lay members of the Tribunal, Mr Foley, dated 18 May 1992.
In these circumstances we do not propose to deal specifically with each of Mr Uzoma's many grounds of appeal. In our view none of them entitle us to interfere with the Tribunal's decision. We can only interfere if the Tribunal misdirects itself as to the law or reaches a conclusion on the facts which is perverse in the sense that no reasonable tribunal would have reached it. In our judgment there is nothing here which justifies our interfering on either ground. We think that the reasons given by the Tribunal which were formulated with great care and some sympathy, are not amenable to the attack which Mr Uzoma has levelled against them, nor do we think in the circumstances, this is a case where any legitimate complaint of bias can be made.
Accordingly this appeal will be dismissed.