United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MS RACHEL CRASNOW (of Counsel) Instructed By: Messrs Thompsons Solicitors Congress House Great Russell Street London WC1B 3LW


 


MR RECORDER UNDERHILL QC:

1. We propose to allow this appeal to proceed to a full hearing. We are satisfied that it is arguable that the Employment Tribunal did not approach the issues raised by the application in the correct way, as required by the Act. This is in any event still a difficult area and the points raised by the Appellant deserve full argument. Whether, at the end of the day, even if the appeal were to succeed and the matter to be considered again, an Employment Tribunal would come to any different decision is a point which has given us some concern. But we cannot say at this stage that it would not.
2. Ms Crasnow, who appears for the Appellant, has indicated that although the grounds of appeal as drafted probably do cover the points which she has clearly set out in her skeleton argument and developed before us, she would welcome the opportunity to revise them so as to make those points more explicitly. We accordingly will permit her to amend the grounds of appeal in accordance with the skeleton argument, such amended grounds of appeal to be served within 14 days; Respondent's answer 14 days thereafter.
3. There is one other aspect of this case which is puzzling. The Employment Tribunal's Reasons indicate that the case was settled following the indication that the claim had succeeded as regards unfair dismissal but had failed as regards the claim under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Miss Crasnow, however, tells us that her instructions are that all that was settled was the claim for unfair dismissal. She points out that it is at least possible that compensation will be approached on a different basis for disability discrimination, if the appeal were eventually to succeed and the matter to be remitted to the Tribunal. Indeed, there would on any view be the possibility of a claim for injury to feelings. She has supplied us with a statement from the Union Official who represented the Appellant and negotiated the settlement in question which says in terms that "It was perfectly clear that such settlement was for the unfair dismissal claim only". We do not know whether that statement would be accepted by the Respondent. If it is the Respondent's case that the entirety of the claim was settled, that is of course a matter which they will be entitled to raise in their answer to this appeal and consideration would have to be given, were that to occur, to the best way of dealing with any such issue: it may be that further directions would be needed. But we cannot do more than draw attention to it at this stage.
4. Subject to that last point, we would estimate the necessary length of hearing a full day. That can be re-visited if necessary if there appears to be a point on the settlement, but at present it seems the sensible estimate. Category C.