United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law in Mr Soormally's appeal against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at Bury St Edmunds on various days in September 1997 and 3rd October 1997.

He had complained that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of race by his employers, the Department of Social Security (Benefit Agency) the respondents to the application. He made two sets of complaints. The first about his non-selection for promotion; and secondly, in relation to the annual reports prepared upon him. In relation to both matters he contended that he had been discriminated against on racial grounds.

The tribunal, presided over by Mr Ash, in a decision which seems full and easy to follow, and whose format is admirable, if we may so, concluded that the claims were not well founded.

Mr Soormally would wish to challenge their conclusion. He says, primarily, that it is a very surprising result for the tribunal to have reached, having regard, in particular, to two matters: firstly, the employers themselves investigated his complaint of discrimination and concluded, after a thorough investigation, that the complaint relating to discrimination in the selection for team leaders was to be upheld, principally based on the finding that the selection processes were flawed and it could not be shown that all candidates were treated in a similar manner; second, the concession made in a letter of 9th June 1997. That document is referred to at paragraph 1 of his Notice of Appeal. We have not considered whether the tribunal were correct to have refused to look at that letter, and we form no view about its admissibility, but what Mr Soormally says is that, effectively, the solicitors acting for the respondents have admitted liability. Pointing therefore to those two matters in particular, Mr Soormally asks us to say that the decision of the Industrial Tribunal should be looked at with very great care.

We think that it is arguable that something has gone wrong in this case, in the sense that the conclusion of the Industrial Tribunal in the face of all the difficulties which they themselves recognise might seem somewhat surprising. We are prepared, in those circumstances, to say that the appeal should go ahead for a full hearing. I would like to reserve the case to myself. By allowing it to go through I want to indicate now that no assumption should be made one way or the other as to outcome of the appeal, I have not had the benefit of legal argument on behalf of Mr Soormally nor have I had the benefit of any representation by the Department of Social Security.

Mr Soormally has asked for Notes of Evidence. He is without legal representation through some mistake in the administration of the ELAAS scheme, for which we apologise. It is the first time in my experience that there has been such a mistake. It seems to me to be highly unlikely that the Notes of Evidence will be required. But it does seem to me that I should fix a directions hearing for this appeal so that the question of Notes of Evidence can be properly considered if an application for them is to be made. At that directions hearing the respondents will be of course entitled to attend and I will then make a ruling upon it. If of course Mr Soormally's legal representative does not think that the Notes of Evidence are required then there would be no need for such a directions hearing.

The case is to be listed Category B and one day's duration.