United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR DANIEL MATOVU (Of Counsel) Messrs Over Taylor Biggs 1 Oak Tree Place Manaton Close Matford Business Park Exeter Devon EX2 8WA


 


MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC

1. This is a Preliminary Hearing in an appeal from a decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at Truro, the reasons for which were promulgated on 16 March 2001. That Tribunal found that Miss Sincock had been discriminated against on the grounds of sex. It did so by inference from primary facts which it found.
2. We take the view, without determining any issue, that it is arguable that the inference drawn was materially influenced by findings of fact which are set out at paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Extended Reasons. Those relate to the comparable level of offending in respect of tachographs as between the Respondent and other HGV drivers in the Appellant's employment. We are told by Mr Matovu in his skeleton argument and submissions, and it is the basis of the appeal, that there was no, or no proper, evidential basis for that which appears in paragraphs 13 and 14.
3. We are unable, without sight of the Chairman's Notes of Evidence and without hearing from the Respondent, to determine the correction or otherwise of that submission. Accordingly we propose to give leave so that this appeal can come before the full Tribunal. We order that the Chairman's Notes of Evidence be provided. That skeleton arguments be exchanged no less than 14 days prior to the hearing together with copies of any legal authorities to be relied upon. The case will, we think, take no more than 2 hours. It is Category C.
4. I should add, for completeness, that we have been asked by Mr Matovu to give leave to add an alternative ground of appeal, so called, in these terms: the Tribunal were not properly entitled to draw the inference that they did at paragraph 22 of their decision after having properly taken into account and fairly balanced all relevant factors based accurately on the evidence. Mr Matovu has described this before us as a 'belts and braces' approach which is not strictly necessary for the resolution of the issues. He accepts it might widen the scope of the appeal. We agree with him that it is strictly unnecessary for the resolution of the issue which we have sufficiently described in this short judgment and we decline leave for amendment in these terms.