United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR M JOHNSTONE (Representative) Messrs Rebbo & Parker-Smith Employment Law Specialists Merlin House 122-126 Kilburn High Road London NW6 4HY


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: The appellant, Mrs Ramsay, a British subject, was employed as a secretary at the Medical Office at the Egyptian Embassy at 47 Longridge Road, London S.W.5. from 18th July 1990 until her dismissal on 2nd September 1996.

On 15th October 1996 she presented a complaint to the Industrial Tribunal that she had been dismissed in breach of contract and unfairly, and further, that she had been subjected to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of both her race and her sex.

The matter came before the London (North) Industrial on 23rd April 1997, and the respondent took the point that it was immune from suit by virtue of ss. 4(1) and 16(1)(a) of the State Immunity Act 1978.

In a decision with full reasons promulgated on 9th May 1997, the Industrial Tribunal reluctantly upheld that submission finding itself bound to do so in the light of the decision of this appeal tribunal in Arabic Republic of Egypt (Embassy) v N Gamal-Eldin and another [1996] ICR 13 and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ahmed v Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [1996] ICR 25.

On that occasion the appellant was represented by Mr Johnstone, an employment rights adviser. Having failed before the Industrial Tribunal, the appellant appealed to this tribunal and the matter comes before us today on a preliminary hearing held to determine whether or not there is an arguable point of law to go to a full appeal hearing.

Today, Mr Johnstone for the first time has sought to invoke the principles contained in Pickstone v Freemans Plc [1988] ICR 697 and Pepper v Hart [1993] ICR 291 to refer us to the debate in Parliament prior to the passing of the 1978 Act in order to demonstrate that the Act as finally passed, contained errors at the drafting stage and that Parliament did not intend the result which the courts say inevitably flows from a proper construction of ss. 4 and 16 of the Act.

He has referred to an extract from Hansard dealing with the debate in the House of Lords on 17th January 1978, and in particular has referred us to a passage in which the then Lord Chancellor referred to obiter remarks of Lord Denning, sitting in the House of Lords in a case in 1957. We have read this extract with interest, but as Mr Johnstone accepts, it comes no where near supporting the proposition which he seeks to make out in this appeal.

There has been ample opportunity to make good this point for the purpose of argument. It has not been done. We do not permit appeals to go to a full hearing which have not been properly researched, and in these circumstances, this appeal must be dismissed.