United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR A GEORGE (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


JUDGE CLARK

1. In this case the Appellant, Mr Sandhu, complained that he was less favourably treated by his line manager, Mr Ridgewell, than comparable white employees during his employment with the Benefits Agency, which had originally commenced in July 1987.
2. The acts complained of were said to have occurred during the period mid to late 1997, culminating in his presenting a complaint of unlawful racial discrimination on 26 November 1997.
3. That complaint came before an Employment Tribunal sitting at London (North), (under the Chairmanship of Mr D H Roose) on 9-11 and 14 June 1999. By a decision with extended reasons dated 1 July 1999, the Employment Tribunal dismissed his complaint. Against that decision he appealed.
4. The case was first listed for preliminary hearing before a division presided over by Pugsley J, on 22 November 1999. On that occasion the hearing was adjourned so that the Appellant could amend his Notice of Appeal and swear and lodge an affidavit dealing with his allegations of bias particularly directed to the Chairman of the Employment Tribunal.
5. We now have the amended grounds of appeal together with an affidavit dated 5 December 1999.
6. Today Mr Sandhu is represented by Mr George under the ELASS pro bono scheme. He has divided his submissions into two parts. We shall deal with the second first, that is the allegations of bias. By reference to the Appellant's affidavit, Mr George has identified 5 points, which he says, individually or cumulatively, give rise to an arguable case that the Chairman was biased or at any rate, gave the appearance of bias to an independent observer, we have been referred to the recent Court of Appeal decision in Locabail (UK) Ltd –v- Bayfield (2000) IRLR 96.
7. Those 5 matters are first, in relation to the Chairman's treatment of the Appellant's witnesses and his representative below, Mr Ford. Secondly, that the Chairman appeared to be disinterested in the proceedings. Third, that he and his colleagues ignored important evidence as appears from the way in which the Employment Tribunal reasons are drafted. Fourthly, having indicated that no further documentary evidence would be admitted at the start of the hearing, there being some 500 pages of evidence before the Employment Tribunal, the Chairman then permitted the Respondent to put in further documentary evidence, and finally, that the Chairman appeared to have an inappropriate relationship with Counsel for the Respondent on the basis that it appeared that the Chairman favoured Counsel at the expense of the Appellant's representative.
8. We have carefully considered each of those submissions and looked at them in the round. In our judgment there is insufficient here to amount to an arguable case of bias applying the principles, to be found most recently in Locabail and accordingly we shall dismiss that part of the appeal, which appears in the amended grounds at paragraph 6(e).
9. So far as the first part of Mr George's submissions are concerned, they are adequately reflected, we think, in grounds (b), (c), (d) and (f) of the amended grounds of appeal. We do not propose to rehearse them for the purpose of this judgment. It is sufficient to say that we are satisfied that each of those grounds give rise to arguable points which ought to be considered at a full inter partes hearing. That leaves only ground 6(a), which is a general perversity allegation which in our judgment will not be made out at a full hearing and consequently we dismiss that ground of appeal. Consequently the result is that the case will go forward to a full appeal hearing on grounds 6(b), (c), (d) and (f), of the amended grounds of appeal, the remaining grounds being dismissed. The case will be listed for ½ day, category C, there will be exchange of skeleton arguments between the parties not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing. Copies of those skeleton arguments to be lodged with the Employment Appeal Tribunal at the same time.
10. Two further points were raised by Mr George during submissions. We directed that he lodge a re-amended Notice of Appeal within 14 days. I shall then consider granting leave to re-amend.