United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	The Appellant in person


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC

1. This is an ex parte hearing of an appeal by Mr Kuttappan. The Respondent to the appeal is the London Borough of Croydon. It arises from a complaint made by Mr Kuttappan on 7 August 2000. His complaint suggested there was racial discrimination and racial victimisation in the manner in which the Chief Executive of the Respondent had been appointed. There was a long hearing before a Tribunal sitting at London South. At the end of the hearing, the Decision was promulgated on 13 June 2001 dismissing the complaint.
2. The Notice of Appeal raises various points, We and Mr Kuttappan have had the benefit of Mr Quigley assisting him and us on the ELAAS scheme on the appeal. He raises certain matters about irregularity in the hearing and misdirections by the Tribunal, of law; but having considered them carefully, we are satisfied that there is nothing in them.
3. However there is one matter which appears from paragraph 1 from the Notice of Appeal which has troubled us; that is the issue was whether there was a vacancy when the Chief Executive was re-elected, and if so, what procedure should be gone through.
4. There appears to have been what is called a "long discussion" with the Chief Executive and others as to this, which could be said, or could arguably be said to have been the start of the interviewing process.
5. If what could be said may be right, there is an arguable point to go forward to a full Tribunal. Mr Quigley has said that he would assist Mr Kuttappan in redrafting paragraph 1 of the amended Notice of Appeal, the better to illustrate an appeal going ahead on that point, on both heads of the grounds on which the complaint was made.
6. We will give leave for the appeal to go through on that one ground only; we think this is a matter which should be Category B and the estimated length of hearing half a day.