United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


MR JUSTICE LINDSAY: The position in this matter is that we have a "preliminary" before us where the prospective Appellant is Mr Karim. He is not here before us either in person or represented. We have no message to say that he has been delayed or ill or inconvenienced in any way. It is simply a case that he has, as it would seem, chosen not be here. We understand that whatever representation he earlier had has been withdrawn from him and that he knows of the withdrawal and so he would have needed to have made alternative arrangements, which have not been made. In fact, I am told that he has turned up for work for the Respondent today, so plainly has chosen not to be here.

The notice of appeal sets forward two grounds. The first is that the Industrial Tribunal erred in law in failing fully to consider the implications of the failure by the Respondent company, Laxton Crawford Ltd, to interview an eye witness to the alleged incident. The eye witness that is suggested possibly to have been of relevance is a Mr Ashraf. It does not at all follow from the fact that Mr Ashraf was an eye witness that he would necessarily have been able to say anything useful because the evidence seems to be that someone interposed himself between Mr Karim and Mr Ashraf so Mr Ashraf may not have seen anything of importance. I do not think there is anything that we can be clear that Mr Ashraf could have said but, in any event, if Mr Ashraf could have said anything, it would have been relative to the question of an assault and the assault, as such, was not relied on as part of the complaint of racial dismissal. The Industrial Tribunal had before it the question of whether Mr Ashraf should have been interviewed and we see nothing in that ground that suggests a point of law of any possible development on the part of Mr Karim.

The second point that the notice of appeal sought to raise was that the Industrial Tribunal erred in law in finding the prime facts and the subsequent matters as trivial and in finding that they did not give rise to an inference of racial discrimination. Precisely what adjective is appropriate to apply to the incident is very much a matter for the Industrial Tribunal, as a jury, and as the body that heard all the evidence. The fact that they describe it as trivial cannot be other than a response by them to the evidence as they heard it and there is nothing that we can see that suggests that that term is inappropriate and, certainly, we can see nothing that elevates the adjective to a point of law.

We see no possible grounds of appeal on behalf of Mr Karim and so this matter goes no further.