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 >> Canniffe v East Riding Of Yorkshire Council [1999] UKEAT 1035_98_2605 (26 May 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1035_98_2605.html
Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1035_98_2605
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
(AS IN CHAMBERS)
MRS D CANNIFFE APPELLANT
EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE COUNCIL RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
(DIRECTIONS HEARING)
| For the Appellant | MS K MONAGHAN (of Counsel) Humberside Law Centre 95 Alfred Gelder Street Hull HU1 1EP |
| For the Respondents | MS M MacPHERSON (of Counsel) Miss S Lockwood Head of Legal Services East Riding of Yorkshire Council County Hall Beverley East Yorkshire HU17 9BA |
MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): There is an application in this case to make significant amendments to the Notice of Appeal. I grant that application, but in doing so make it perfectly plain the basis on which this application has not been opposed by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council.
Included within the amendment is a point relating to section 41(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and its relationship between that and the Equal Treatment Directive 76/207/EEC. The Respondents are an emanation of the State. It is contended that defence provided in section 41(3) is incompatible with the rights granted by the Directive and accordingly, should be disapplied in relation to people, who are employed by an emanation of the State.
This was not a point which was argued before the Employment Tribunal and it was made plain to me that the basis on which these strivings of Yorkshire Council would not oppose the application for leave to amend was that they reserved their position to argue, when the appeal is called on, that the Employment Appeal Tribunal should not consider this argument because it had not been advanced before the Employment Tribunal. I therefore grant the application for leave to amend on that basis.