United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR J BOWERS QC Ms M A Davis Messrs Field Fisher Waterhouse Solicitors 41 Vine Street London EC3N 2AA
For the Respondent	MR T KIBLING (of Counsel) Ms S J Turcan Messrs Charles Russell Solicitors 8 - 10 Fetter Lane London EC4A 1RS


 


JUDGE CLARK

1. This appeal, brought by the employer, Tokyo Mitsubishi International Plc, against a decision of the London (North) Employment Tribunal promulgated with extended reasons on 10 June 1999, upholding the employee, Mr Anisetti's complaint of direct unlawful discrimination, came on for ex parte preliminary hearing before a division of the Employment Appeal Tribunal presided over by Charles J on 14 January 2000.
2. On that occasion the Employment Appeal Tribunal had before it a Notice of Appeal settled by Mr Bowers QC, running to 12 separate grounds, supplemented by a skeleton argument which dealt with those grounds and raised further points.
3. As appears from Charles J, judgment the appeal was permitted to proceed to a full hearing on all grounds contained in the Notice of Appeal. In addition, the Employment Appeal Tribunal made certain directions for the disposal of the appeal including the following:

(1) The Appellant was given permission to serve draft amended grounds of appeal, covering the further points raised in Mr Bowers skeleton argument, within 14 days.

(2) The Appellant was to prepare a document setting out the issues and facts in the case, on which the Respondent was to comment, with a view to obviating the need for Chairman's Notes of Evidence, the case having been heard by the Employment Tribunal over some 7 days.

(3) A directions hearing was to take place at which consideration was to be given to the possibility of a preliminary issue being taken in the full appeal hearing.

It is that direction hearing which I am conducting today. The following questions arise:

(i) Ought the Appellant to be granted permission to amend the Notice of Appeal in the form of the draft now before me?

(ii) Ought there to be a split hearing in this appeal?

(iii) Have the parties been able to identify all necessary material for the hearing of the full appeal without the need for Chairman's Notes of Evidence.

4. I have been assisted in answering those questions by the submissions of Mr Bowers and Mr Kibling, both of whom appeared below. My answers to those 3 questions are as follows:

(1) There is no objection by Mr Kibling to the application for permission to amend the Notice of Appeal, and accordingly I shall grant that permission. The appeal will proceed on the basis of the draft amended Notice now before me.

(2) Having considered the submissions of Mr Bowers and Mr Kibling, it seems to me that the proposal that grounds 1-4 of the amended Notice of Appeal ought to be tried separately from the remaining grounds of appeal, is unattractive. It seems to me that the division which is finally seized of the full appeal hearing ought to have the opportunity to consider all grounds of appeal and then to give directions at the full hearing as to how the matter is to proceed. If it is thought helpful to separate out some of the grounds of appeal and to deal with them first; that will be a matter for the full Tribunal. In these circumstances I shall direct that the case be listed for hearing of all issues and that the case be listed on 2 consecutive days before the same Appeal Tribunal.

(3) The material necessary for the full appeal hearing, Mr Kibling asked for a further 14 days from today in which to respond specifically to the schedule of evidence which has been presented on behalf of the Appellant. I shall grant that extension of time.

5. The papers will be returned to me once Mr Kibling has prepared a schedule in response and if necessary I shall deal with any further directions on paper. In particular, any question that may be raised in the future as to Chairman's Notes of Evidence. It is much to be hoped that the parties will be able to agree the necessary material without recourse to the Chairman's notes.