United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR P T ROSE (of Counsel) Bedfordshire County Council County Hall Cauldwell Street Bedford MK42 9AP


 


JUDGE WILCOX

1. This is an appeal that relates to interlocutory decisions made by the Employment Tribunal in relation to an Originating Application by Mrs C S Liversidge against the Chief Constable at Bedfordshire. Originally there were allegations made against a fellow Police Officer, Police Constable Fitzgibbon. Those allegations were not proceeded with. Whether they were withdrawn or whether there was a finding or not is a matter, it is clear, for future `argument. There was an Originating Application taken out by P C Fitzgibbon against the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire a compromise was then effectuated between the Respondent and P C Fitzgibbon. The status of that compromise may have to be considered at a later stage.
2. At present the Appellant is arguing that the compromise means that in relation to the Originating Application presently before us, that Res Judicata applies. We are told there is likely to be a cross appeal in relation to that matter. We are concerned with the allegations of racial discrimination and victimisation that are presently being considered by the Tribunal. These have been the subjects of argument before the Tribunal below.
3. Mr Rose submitted that they are imprecise as to time and they do not condescend to sufficient particularity as to who may have uttered the offensive remarks. We note that in cases like this it is frequently difficult for someone who perceives themselves to be the object of discrimination to give very precise particulars. It is part of the invidious nature of racial discrimination that makes this so.
4. On the other hand we have to look at what is fair for the person or organisation against whom the very serious allegations of racial discrimination are made. They are entitled to have the best particulars to enable them to defend in a sensible and economic way themselves against unjust allegations. To that end they are entitled to know a bare minimum as to the case against them to enable them to defend themselves. We think that in this case where there is not a great deal of particularity about time or the identification of the persons involved that it is arguable that there is a sufficiency of information to enable the Appellant to present a realistic defence. We are also concerned about matters of jurisdiction. We have looked at the very best particulars it seems that the Applicant in this case can provide. Those are contained at page 68 of the witness statement that has been presented to the Tribunal by her. Particularly at paragraph 101.
5. In relation to a complaint within the time limit the Tribunal may be entitled in considering the meaning to be given to what is said. We think it is arguable at present that the Tribunal may have misdirected themselves as to the requirements as to time.
6. We give leave for this case to go to a full Tribunal. Because we are told that there will be a cross appeal as to the effect of the compromise this should be set down for one day. The Tribunal hearing has been appointed for 7 October for some 7 days with a multiplicity of witnesses to be called. It is desirable that this appeal should be heard as soon as possible so that that appointment can be kept. If not consideration should be given to vacating it.
7. We have been referred to the judgment of Peter Gibson LJ in Chadman –v- Simon (1994) IRLR 124. It may be that further guidance can be given as to the bare minimum that a Respondent is entitled to in this type of case.