United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	TESS GILL (of Counsel) Messrs Pattinson & Brewer Solicitors 1 Bridge Street York YO1 1DD


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether or not there is an arguable point of law in the Notice of Appeal which the Appellant wishes to advance against a unanimous decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at Leeds. The decision was sent to the parties on 2 June 1997 following an 11 day hearing.

The nature of the complaint does not need to be elaborated. It was simply a case of sexual harassment alleged by the Applicant Appellant against an individual with whom she worked and against the employers of herself and that individual.

The Industrial Tribunal rejected the complaint, largely on the grounds that the detailed specific incidents on which she relied either did not take place, or she had not proved that they had taken place.

The argument advanced on the Appellant's behalf at this preliminary hearing is, in effect, a wholesale attack on the format and form of the judgment. It is said that the Tribunal have inadequately dealt with the factual issues in this case and have left the parties and in particular, the Appellant, in a state of uncertainty as to why it was that she failed in her claim.

There are other specific matters referred to in Ms Gill's skeleton argument dated 28 June 1998 which do not need to be further elaborated. Suffice it to say at this stage that all of these points appear to us to be arguable. It would be most unfortunate if, at the end of the day, the Employment Appeal Tribunal were to conclude that the criticisms of the decision were justified because the parties are entitled to expect a decision from an Industrial Tribunal, at the end of a hearing of 11 days, which is in full and sufficient form, albeit that it may contain errors as everybody is prone to. But if Ms Gill is right and this decision is defective as she alleges, it is a matter of great regret that that should be so.

The Respondents not being here, in the sense of not participating in this hearing, will have the opportunity of seeking further directions from the EAT if they think it appropriate. From their perspective they have won on the facts. This is a court which can only deal with points of law and they will be seeking to persuade us that the decision, if somewhat inadequate, is at least sufficient and satisfactory. That will be the nature of the issue between the parties assuming the appeal is to go ahead.

The matters in question occurred a long time ago. If Ms Gill were correct in her submissions there are only two possibilities. One is that the matter would be remitted to the same Industrial Tribunal for further elaboration and the other is that it would be remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted Industrial Tribunal.

In these circumstances it is obviously sensible that this should be given an early listing. It is a Category A case suitable only for a High Court Judge to deal with. It will last at least a day as things stand at the moment. If there is an application for further directions to the EAT then the time estimate can be reconsidered at that time.

I am not prepared at this stage to order Notes of Evidence or to decline to order Notes of Evidence. I will leave that in the air at the moment. It should have an early listing if possible, one day as things stand at the moment.