United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED


 


SIR CHRISTOPHER BELLAMY QC: This is an appeal which comes before us by way of preliminary hearing. The appellant appeals against the decision of the Employment Tribunal held at London (North), the extended reasons for which were sent to the parties on 19th April 2000.

1. The appellant is employed by Saudi Arabian Airlines who are the respondents to the case. In their decision the tribunal decided at a preliminary hearing that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, since she was not employed at an establishment in Great Britain, and therefore dismissed the application.
2. The appellant appeals mainly on the basis that the tribunal has misconstrued the relevant statutory provisions and in particular section 10(1) of the 1975 Act.
3. The appeal turns on the correct approach to the words "wholly or mainly outside Great Britain" where they occur in that section.
4. At this stage, since this is a matter that comes before us by way of preliminary hearing, we only have to decide whether there is a reasonably arguable point of law. Because of a bereavement in the family, the appellant has been unable to attend today but she has written to the tribunal by letter of 18th October 2000 inviting the tribunal to proceed with the hearing in her absence. That we are empowered to do and we do so.
5. The question of construction that has been raised has already been the subject of considerable judicial interpretation and this matter has itself already travelled to the Court of Appeal on at least one occasion. We are satisfied that the Notice of Appeal, dated 30th May 2000, does give rise to an arguable point of law. The point of law being whether the tribunal erred in law in its construction or application of section 10(1) of the 1975 Act. On that point of law the appeal should therefore proceed to a full hearing.
6. We add that the above point of law as formulated is intended to cover arguments covering the scope of Article 141 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, as set out in paragraph 6(b) of the Notice of Appeal, as well as the issue of construction referred to in paragraph 6(a).
7. We consider this is a Category B case. It should be listed for ½ a day. Skeleton arguments should be exchanged in the normal way. No further directions seem necessary.