United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 675_94_1309

Appeal No. EAT/675/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 13 September 1994

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FRENCH

MS S R CORBY

MR J C RAMSAY

---

AUTOMOTIVE & FINANCIAL GROUP LIMITED          APPELLANTS

MR A MAHMOOD          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants MR R DAVISON

(Of Counsel)

Messrs Dean Wilson

96 Church Street

Brighton

East Sussex

BN1 1UJ

For the Respondent MR B WILTSHIRE

(Of Counsel)

Mr M Javaid

Commission for Racial Equality

Elliot House

10/12 Allington Street

London

SW1E 5EH


 


MR JUSTICE FRENCH: In the proceedings with which we are concerned, the Applicant to those proceedings, makes complaint of racial discrimination. The hearing is part-heard.

On 6 July 1994, at a hearing for directions, the Industrial Tribunal made the following order:

"That on or before 20 July 1994, the Respondent [to the proceedings who is Appellant in this case], should produce for inspection, on reasonable notice, at an address of the Respondent convenient to the home of the Applicant, such documents specified below as are in its possession or custody or power and permits copies to be taken"

And the schedule of documents, the subject matter of the order, are:

"(i) Papers relating to a complaint of racial discrimination by Mr Wayne Nelson

(ii) Papers to show that the loan to Mr Blasco was approved on the first figures

(iii) Papers to show the date of appointments as Directors of Mr Kass and Mr Baverman.

The thrust of this appeal is concerned only with papers relating to a complaint of racial discrimination by Mr Wayne Nelson and no arguments were addressed to us regarding (ii) and (iii).

The Appellants appeal against this order is based on the following arguments:

"That first the character of the evidence is evidence in rebuttal. That such evidence would only be permissible if the Applicant could not reasonably have foreseen that a witness, namely Mr Kass, would say he was not racially prejudiced; that the Applicant should not be permitted to call the witness, Mr Nelson.

Secondly, that the documents themselves are hearsay and prove nothing in that the claim by Mr Nelson of racial discrimination had been compromised on a without prejudice basis for a certain sum and

Thirdly, that it is questionable whether discovery of the documents could have been ordered at any stage of the Originating Application as they relate to one alleged incident of racial discrimination, an incident which has no connection with the Applicant's case.

The order made, in our judgment, was a matter for the discretion of the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal has not ruled that the documents, when inspected, will be admitted by the Tribunal. Whether they are admitted or not will be a matter for the decision of the Industrial Tribunal at the resumed hearing.

It will be therefore, for the Industrial Tribunal to rule whether any and what use can properly be made of the documents. It will also be for the Industrial Tribunal to rule, in its discretion, whether any and what further live evidence on behalf of the Applicant, in this case, (the Respondent to these appeal proceedings) should be admitted.

Accordingly, we find that there is no substance in this appeal and it will be dismissed.