Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Moore v Commissioner of Police For Metropolis [1998] UKEAT 1281_97_1601 (16 January 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/1281_97_1601.html
Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 1281_97_1601
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
DR D GRIEVES CBE
MR W MORRIS
MRS C A MOORE APPELLANT
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR THE METROPOLIS RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | MS V EASTY (Of Counsel) Messrs Russell Jones & Walker Solicitors Swinton House 324 Gray's Inn Road London WC1X 8DH |
MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal which rejected the Applicant's complaints of discrimination which she wished to maintain against her employers, The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, on the grounds that they had not been presented within time and that it was not just or equitable to extend time.
We are satisfied at this stage of the Preliminary hearing that there are arguable points of law in relation to this decision. In summary form they are, firstly, whether the Tribunal was right to conclude that the acts to which they refer in the decision, namely the application of the rota and the way they dealt with sickness absence, were continuing acts. Secondly, whether it was just and equitable, if they were not continuing acts, to extend time. Thirdly, whether they have given sufficient reasons for their decision on those points.
The grounds are more fully set out in the grounds of appeal. We should make it plain that we do not consider it to be reasonably arguable that the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, produced three months after the oral hearing, is on that account to be taken as defective. Accordingly, it seems to us that the argument raised at paragraph 4.13 should be struck-out. Apart from that, the Notice of Appeal sets out the points which we consider to be arguable. We take the view, having read the Respondent's PHD Form, for which we are grateful, that no Notes of Evidence are required for the fair disposal of this appeal; that this should be listed as a Category B case. Bearing in mind that there is a conflict between the estimates of time, we are prepared to say that this is a case which is going to occupy probably rather more than a half-day but less than a full day. There are no other directions which we need to give at this time.