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 >> Driskel v Peninsula Business Services Ltd & Ors [1999] UKEAT 1120_98_1404 (14 April 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1120_98_1404.html
Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1120_98_1404
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
| On 26 March 1999 | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLLAND
MR W MORRIS
MRS R A VICKERS
MRS B DRISKEL APPELLANT
PENINSULA BUSINESS SERVICES LTD & OTHERS RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | IN PERSON |
MR JUSTICE HOLLAND:
By an 1TI dated 12th September 1996 the Applicant, Mrs Barbara Driskel complained of sexual discrimination and sexual harassment. By a further 1TI dated 22nd November 1996 she complained of unfair dismissal. Peninsula Business Service Ltd were named as Respondents to each complaint, together with named individuals, prominent being Mr Michael Huss. In the event after an astonishingly prolonged hearing, a Industrial Tribunal sitting at Manchester dismissed all the complaints, doing so by way of Extended Reasons dated the 10th June 1998. The Applicant sought a Review (to no effect) and appealed to this Tribunal. That Appeal has come before us by way of a Preliminary Hearing and in the result we direct that it be listed for a further inter parte hearing. The essential point that concerns us is as to whether, having regard to its findings of fact, the Industrial Tribunal correctly directed itself as to what was required as a matter of law to sustain a complaint made pursuant to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. We draw attention to the findings of fact favourable to the Applicant made in the following paragraphs of the Extended Reasons:
Paragraphs (xi), (xiii), (xiv), (xv)and (xxiv).
Given that none such in the event served to substantiate the complaint, what direction as to law underpinned the decision? In that context this Tribunal draws quizzical attention to (by way of example) the reasoning set out in paragraph (xvii). With more hesitation, we give leave to raise the unfair dismissal issue: given substantiated allegations against Mr Huss, what follows?
Leave aside the matters which account for our decision, this Tribunal may wish to use the hearing of this Appeal to express concern with the way in which these complaints were heard and to give guidance as to future conduct of like matters. There was, seemingly, no or no effective preliminary hearing directed to defining issues, the number of hearings looks absurd and suggests a loss of control, whilst the length and style of the Extended Reasons strongly suggests that wood and trees had become all one blur. Listing: at least half a day; category B: and, we would suggest, before a Tribunal chaired by the President or a High Court Judge. We reiterate our hope that the Appellant, as she now is, obtains legal representation for the appeal.