United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Mr P Edwards Counsel Devereux Chambers Devereux Court London WC2R 3JJ
For the Respondent	Mr R Nicolle Solicitor Messrs Lovell White Durrant 65 Holborn Viaduct London EC1A 2DY


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON: This is a somewhat unusual case. The Appellant appeared before an Industrial Tribunal in person in proceedings he had brought against his former employers, Raindrop Information Systems Ltd. The conclusion of the Industrial Tribunal was that when he was dismissed he was not unlawfully dismissed on grounds of his sex, that he had been, during the course of his employment, discriminated against on the grounds of sex when he was denied the opportunity of attending a trade show in Leeds in May 1997 for which he was awarded £50 in compensation. The Appellant wished to appeal on a large number of the grounds but had the benefit of the ELAAS scheme and the representative, Mr Peter Edwards of Counsel, who looked after his interests.

It is obvious from the documents in my possession, that the Appellant was well advised to concentrate on one point only, which was arguable, namely the size of the award of compensation. In response to the Appeal the Employers themselves resisted the Appeal in their answer but cross-appealed in relation to the liability decision, disputing that the Appellant had been discriminated against when he was denied the opportunity of attending a Trade Show. That cross-appeal raises substantial issues including if not issues of fact, matters very close to being issues of fact under the guise of perversity or something similar. For the purposes of the cross-notice, the Employers, through Mr Nicolle who was present at the Employment Tribunal, says that notes of evidence will be required but limited to and only limited to the finding of unlawful discrimination that was made. The bulk of the evidence he tells me, and I of course accept, was directed to the question as to whether the dismissal involves an element of sex discrimination.

In the circumstances of this case, it seems to me appropriate that the cross-notice of appeal should be treated as a self-standing appeal on the question of liability and that the matter should come before a full panel of the Employment Appeal Tribunal for consideration as to whether it raises an arguable point of law. At that hearing, it will be possible for the Employment Appeal Tribunal to determine if there is an arguable point of law and what if any, of the notes of evidence will be required at that time. No notes of evidence are required on the short point that is raised by the Appeal. This is a very short point indeed. We would estimate that if the Appeal stood on its own it could be dealt within not more than 1 hour of hearing time. The range of potential award in this case would be from the figure of £50 as was awarded by the Employment Tribunal through to something of the order of £500 or £750. I say that without prejudice to the parties' position and their arguments that they might make, but that it will be seen that the amount at stake on this appeal is relatively small in any event. The Employers must be left to take what course they think is correct in the light of this decision, I will not make any Order for the notes of evidence at this time but will direct that the cross-appeal be listed for a Preliminary Hearing under our Preliminary Hearing procedure to determine whether it raises any arguable point of law and then to deal with any question of notes of evidence at that time.

Because of the potential time lag in this case I think it would be sensible if I was to direct that the Preliminary Hearing would come on before the end of April, the actual time for the hearing of a Preliminary Hearing is not normally firmly estimated because roughly 1 hour is allowed for each such case. I would have thought that this was a very short point and I would have thought that ½ hour would more likely to be what was required. In those circumstances, it could readily be a case added to my list, if I am available, starting at 10.00 o'clock one morning, without interruption to any of the other workload that there is, or in front of any other judge, just added to their normal list without any undue inconvenience.