United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 1037_94_1603

Appeal No. EAT/1037/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 16th March 1995

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BUCKLEY

MISS A MADDOCKS OBE

MR T C THOMAS CBE

---

BIMBOLA MODUPE OKUNOWO          APPELLANT

BURY WOMEN'S AID          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR M BROOMHEAD

(Representative)

Citizens Advice Bureau

Lucy Street

Gt. Clowes Street

Salford

M7 9ZT


 


MR JUSTICE BUCKLEY: The applicant before the Industrial Tribunal back in February and April 1994 at Manchester, complained that she had been treated less favourably on racial grounds by the respondent before the Tribunal, Bury Women's Aid body. And that was allegedly contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976. The Tribunal after several days hearing evidence and considering documents dismissed the application. The Appellant now comes to this Tribunal seeking to appeal.

The first and obvious point is that the only basis of appeal to this Tribunal is on a point of law. And we have listened to Mr Broomhead who has valiantly argued on behalf of the appellant and directed us to various aspects of the matter in an attempt to persuade us that there is a point of law.

I am afraid that having listened to it all and looked at the documents we are unpersuaded that there is, in truth, any basis in law for an appeal.

The first point perhaps, really the basis for all his others, was really one of bias or apparent bias on the part of the Tribunal. The point is that two members of the Tribunal had some previous experience of the Appellant's previous involvement in other complaints. Now it is common ground that that was stated openly at the hearing. The only factual dispute is as to whether that happened at the beginning of the hearing, before it actually commenced was stated by the Chairman of the Tribunal, in a letter to our Registrar or whether as Mr Broomhead suggested, it might have been some short period in to the hearing.

It makes no difference, so far as we can see, in point of law. The fact of the matter is that the members who had some previous dealings with the Appellant tabled that fact and the parties were asked and we interpose that the Appellant was represented on that occasion what they wanted to do. In effect a short of adjournment was granted whilst they considered their position and the result was that both parties elected to carry on.

Well that being so, it is not open to either party to come to this Tribunal, having elected to proceed and lost, to then seek to go back on that election and complain about the composition of the Tribunal.

We say that is the foundation of Mr Broomhead's submissions because he seeks to try and build on that by saying that evidence was either excluded or admitted wrongly and if you add that to the first point it all builds up so that any person observing the proceedings would have been unhappy and felt that they were not conducted properly, and perhaps leads to a sense of grievance in the Appellant.

Well we have considered the various points Mr Broomhead has made. We have looked at this grounds of appeal and also short affidavit that has been sworn by the Appellant herself. As I say we have looked at those in the light of the findings and reasons of the Tribunal and we have I am afraid been wholly unable to identify a point of law.

The assessment of evidence before a Tribunal, the credibility of the witnesses, these are all matters for the Tribunal and not for us.

The Appeal I am afraid must be dismissed. There is really no point of law here discernable to us.