United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	DR E EZE Representative


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE H WILSON: This preliminary hearing like all preliminary hearings was designed to examine whether the Appellant had an arguable point on appeal and if so, to identify it succinctly for the benefit of those who would conduct the full hearing of the appeal.

The Appellant today has been represented by Dr Eze, who took over her representation on the final day of the hearing before the Employment Tribunal. It seems that he totally fails to understand the purpose of a preliminary hearing as I have just articulated it. Instead, despite many attempts to divert him and confine him to the real purpose of today's hearing, he has insisted on going through the grounds of appeal in detail. They amount to a total re-run of all the evidence and arguments which were before the Employment Tribunal and all of which were dealt with by the Employment Tribunal in the Extended Reasons, which it gave to support its decision. We have followed Dr Eze exhaustively through his Notice of Appeal as expanded by submissions and at each stage we have referred him to the appropriate section in the Extended Reasons.

Dr Eze has failed to identify any acceptable ground upon which we could say there was an arguable point. His principal ground for complaint on behalf of the Appellant appears to be that the Tribunal preferred evidence other than that of his client or called on her behalf. As a subsidiary matter, he complains when the Employment Tribunal expresses the view that the evidence on behalf of the Appellant has been found by them to be unreliable.

Dr Eze appears to labour under a fundamental misconception about the function of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. We are not empowered to hear the facts again and come to different conclusions. It is not part of our jurisdiction to substitute our judgment for the judgment of the Employment Tribunal. It is the Employment Tribunal who have seen and heard and evaluated the witnesses. Upon that evaluation, they decide what facts they find proved. Appeal to this Tribunal is only on matters of law or mixed fact and law. There is no appeal on fact alone and it follows where there is a conflict between two different views in any case, in law one side's view of things is going to be rejected.

We can find no indication that this Tribunal erred in law. We are not entitled to go behind its findings of fact and there is nothing that we can find to suggest that they misdirected themselves in coming to the conclusions which they did. The other matter upon which Dr Eze has relied is bias. He has submitted an affidavit in which he alleges bias and we have had the benefit of not only reading that affidavit but also of reading the response by the Chairman of the Tribunal and two lay members. Finally, we have noted what Dr Eze has said in response to those replies.

We find no evidence of bias. It seems to us that there is confusion between a preference for evidence other than that of the Appellant - which is a perfect legitimate balancing act which the Tribunal always has to perform and with which we cannot interfere - and bias in the sense that any finding which was not in accord with the Appellant's case, is evidence of bias. That we find to be untenable and groundless.

We find no grounds of appeal which have a reasonable chance of success and accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.