United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR J BOWERS QC Instructed By: Ms M A Davis Messrs Field Fisher Waterhouse Solicitors 41 Vine Street London EC3N 2AA


 


MR JUSTICE CHARLES: The parties to the appeal before us today are the Tokyo Mitsubishi International Plc and a Mr Anisetti. The appeal is by the Company, who were Mr Anisetti's employers, against a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at London (North) the Extended Reasons for which were sent to the parties on 10 June 1999.

1. The Notice of Appeal has been professionally drafted and we have had the benefit of an argument which, I think, perhaps can be described as an argument rather than a Skeleton Argument put in on behalf of the Appellant company by Mr Bowers which, if we may say so, has been helpful in identifying the extent and range of the issues that arise on this appeal.
2. The underlying claim was a claim for race discrimination. A number of points are raised in the Notice of Appeal and in the Skeleton Argument. It seems to us at the moment, at this preliminary stage and looking forward to the way in which the appeal will be presented, that the first issue for this Tribunal to consider at the full hearing would be whether the Extended Reasons meet the requirement for Extended Reasons in a case of this type. Simply by way of example, do they properly make findings with appropriate reasons as to (a) the unfavourable treatment and (b) the cause of, or reason for, that unfavourable treatment. The points go wider in the Notice of Appeal but an initial argument is that these Extended Reasons simply fall short of what is required in a case of this type.
3. If the Appellant company was to succeed on that ground it would not be necessary to go on and look at a number of the other grounds save possibly in connection with the argument that this Tribunal not remit but itself should reach a decision on the claim. Again, as a purely preliminary observation, it seems to us that that is a long shot and should the Appellant succeed the likely result would be remission to another Employment Tribunal.
4. Against that background it seems to us that it would be sensible in this case for there to be a Directions Hearing.
5. The purposes of such Directions Hearing include the identification of the issues on the appeal and, in particular, whether there was a need on this appeal for extensive Notes of Evidence to be provided. To that end we have indicated during argument that we would give certain directions, these are:

(1) that within 14 days from today the Appellant will prepare a document which sets out issues and facts as to which they invite the comment and agreement of the Respondents with a view to avoiding the need for the production of Notes of Evidence,

(2) that within 14 days from the receipt of that document the Respondents do provide their response thereto, and

(3) that as soon as practical thereafter there should be a Directions Hearing to consider, amongst other things, whether or not it would be sensible for a two-stage approach to be taken to this appeal, the first stage being whether the Extended Reasons in the form they have been written satisfy the relevant requirements and show that the relevant legal tests have been applied and the relevant findings of facts to satisfy those tests have been made.

6. At this stage therefore, we will simply indicate that all the grounds in the Notice of Appeal should proceed. The Directions Hearing will deal with any addition to the Notice of Appeal to bring in points in the Skeleton Argument, but not in the Notice of Appeal; this reflects paragraph 23 of the Skeleton and as to that we will further direct that a draft amended Notice of Appeal should be served within 14 days.
7. We give the case Category A.