At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR R JACKSON
MR R H PHIPPS
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
For the Appellants | MS J SMITH (of Counsel) Messrs Barlow Lyde & Gilbert Solicitors Beaufort House 15 St Botolph Street London EC3A 7NJ |
JUDGE PETER CLARK: The first point taken in this appeal is that the Tribunal's finding that the dismissal was unfair because the employee, Mr Patel, was not given a proper opportunity to state his case at a disciplinary hearing held before Mr Hill was perverse, and consequently the finding that he was discriminated against on grounds of his race by reason of that procedural failing also cannot stand.
There are further points in relation to comments made on a document prepared by the Respondent and dated 13 July by Ms Reed of Personnel and the significance of those comments, bearing in mind Mr Hill's evidence that he did not read that altered document in the course of the disciplinary hearing; also in relation to the finding of unlawful racial discrimination. As to that point Mr Smith relies upon the recent House of Lords judgment in Strathclyde Regional Council v Zafar [1998] IRLR 36. Finally, in relation to the Tribunal's finding as to contributory fault and the Polkey deduction.
All of these points have been developed in oral submission today by Ms Smith and, having considered those submissions in the light of the Tribunal's extended reasons, we consider that these matters are arguable and should proceed to a full appeal hearing. That hearing should be listed for three quarters of a day; Category C; skeleton arguments to be exchanged between the parties not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing. Copies of those skeletons to be lodged with this Tribunal at the same time.
We have considered the question of whether or not a direction should be given at this stage for the Chairman's notes of evidence. Ms Smith does not press for such order. We have considered the request by Mr Patel in his PHD form for Chairman's notes of the evidence of Mr Hill and Ms Reed in relation to certain numbered paragraphs in the Tribunal's extended reasons. At this stage we do not think it appropriate to make such a direction.
However, we understand that Mr Patel may have the advantage of representation by the CRE. In the event that those advisers consider that the Chairman's notes are legitimately required in order to deal with any aspect of the grounds of appeal advanced by the Appellant, then a further application may be made in writing marked for my attention.