United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 364_95_2704

Appeal No. EAT/364/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 27 April 1995

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON

MR T S BATHO

MRS P TURNER OBE

---

MISS M L HOLT          APPELLANT

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant APPELLANT IN PERSON

For the Respondents MR M RADFORD

(Solicitor)

Kent County Council

County Hall

Maidstone

Kent

ME14 1XQ


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON: This is an Interlocutory Appeal. The Notice of Appeal is dated 8 April 1995 and is against an Industrial Tribunal and Decision which was promulgated on 22 March 1995.

The only issue in controversy between the parties, relates to paragraph 5 of that Decision. It is to be emphasised that in that paragraph the Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal was dealing with an application in relation to discovery of documents. In the course of it, he made two statements to which the Appellant takes exception. The first is this: the Tribunal Hearing the case will not be concerned with whether or not Christchurch College acted correctly in deciding that Miss Holt should fail her second year placement, (with the result that she did not pass her course to qualify as a Social Worker) and the second is: that the reason why she did not qualify is not relevant, because that relates to her relationship with the College and not with the her employers.

We are satisfied that there is no longer any dispute between the parties as to the ambit of discovery, in the sense that the Appellant has, or has had access to, all documents including those which relate to the reason why she did not qualify at Christchurch College. We should draw attention to the fact that the Chairman went on to say that "it will be a matter for the Tribunal hearing the case to decide what evidence is admitted". We think it right to modify, if we may respectfully do so, what the learned Chairman said. We do not accept that the Tribunal hearing the case will not be concerned with whether or not Christchurch College acted correctly, nor do we accept that the reason why she did not qualify is not relevant. We do not know whether a Tribunal hearing the case will be concerned with whether or not Christchurch College acted correctly, nor do we know whether it will be relevant to investigate the reason why she did not qualify. That will depend entirely upon the way the case is presented at the Industrial Tribunal. We can understand that there may be circumstances in which the reason why she failed her course does become relevant to the issues of unfair dismissal and unlawful discrimination, which are alleged by her. We can envisage circumstances in which it would not be relevant. It seems to us that no statement made by the learned Chairman below, nor by this Tribunal, should be regarded as in any way fettering the decision, which will have to be made in due course by the Tribunal which hears the case, as to what issues are or are not relevant.

Accordingly, to that extent, it seems to us that what was said should be modified. We do not think it appropriate to try and put any bar or fetter on the way in which the Tribunal approaches this case, when it comes up for substantive hearing. Apart from that, as we understand it, there will be no difficulty between the parties in proceeding to an early determination and we expressly invite the learned Regional Chairman to try and arrange as early a hearing date as possible, so as to bring this dispute between the parties to an end as soon as possible.

I should just add that we have drawn to the Appellant's attention the fact that she is making complaints of race discrimination, in circumstances in which it may be that the people against whom she is making that complaint are not employees, or were not at that time acting in the employment of Kent County Council. If that is so, then we have drawn to her attention her opportunity of making an appropriate application to the Industrial Tribunal to join, for example, the College. By saying so, we were not encouraging her to make such an application, nor indicating to the Tribunal as to how they should deal with it, were such application to be made. For the record, we have drawn attention to that possibility. That being so, apart from those statements, we make no order on this appeal.