Appeal No.	 EAT/0770/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 17 July 2001

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE DOUGLAS BROWN
MISS N AMIN
MS H PITCHER

MISS L GEORGE	APPELLANT

LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MISS NICOLA BRAGANZA
(of Counsel)
Messrs Atkins Hope
Solicitors
74-78 North End
Croydon
CR9 1SD	

MR JUSTICE DOUGLAS BROWN

1	This is an appeal by Miss Linda George from a decision of the Employment Tribunal for London South, Chairman Ms M E Stacey, when they decided that she had been unfairly dismissed by the London Borough of Lambeth but dismissed her complaint of direct sex and race discrimination and victimisation under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976.  

2	The Appellant has put in successively different Grounds of Appeal.  The first were of her own composition.  Then an advisor, a Mr Williams, put in and eventually obtained permission for the first Amended Grounds of Appeal.  Then at a later stage when solicitors and counsel were engaged a further Amended Notice of Appeal was lodged, settled by Miss Braganza of counsel and this the Registrar declined to permit by way of a further Notice of Appeal.

3	Today, Miss Braganza has appeared for the Appellant and has asked us to look again at the decision not to let her raise some of the Grounds of Appeal, which are the only ground before us, settled professionally by counsel.  We have considered that application and we think there is force in it.  At this stage of an appeal, at the Preliminary Hearing stage, it is not unknown for counsel to appear and for different and better grounds to emerge and for the appeal to be allowed to go forward on those grounds.  

4	We say at once that we are going to allow this appeal to proceed to a Full Hearing on some of the grounds that have been lodged.  Before we come to those we would like to thank Miss Braganza for her skilful advocacy in throwing some light on a rather confused situation.  There are two grounds which will not proceed having been very sensibly abandoned by Miss Braganza on behalf of the Appellant, the first is in relation to a suggestion that the Chairman of the Tribunal should not have sat as she had been an employee of the Respondent Council.  We have not investigated that.  The grounds themselves are contradictory.  The ground settled by the advisor, Mr Williams, made it clear that the position of the Chairman was disclosed at the Tribunal and nevertheless the Appellant elected to proceed.  We say no more about that.  The second ground is in relation to the undoubted fact attested to in a statutory declaration by the Appellant that her copy of the Extended Reasons handed to her on 13 January at the remedy hearing was unsigned and undated.  That led to submissions in the Grounds of Appeal that the proceedings might be a nullity but the grounds proceeded in ignorance of the fact that in fact the reasons which found their way into the Employment Appeal Tribunal bundle were signed and dated.  Again, sensibly, Miss Braganza has taken the course of abandoning that ground of appeal.

5	The Grounds which will go forward and the easiest way of identifying them is from Miss Braganza’s skeleton argument, are grounds 2 and 3 which relate to the amendment, or refusal to amend, the IT1 in relation to the racial, sexual and victimisation grounds.  The IT1 itself was solely on the ground of unfair dismissal.  It is not entirely clear from the reasons, particularly at paragraph 4, whether in fact the amendment was granted or refused.  We propose to say no more about that but it will obviously have to be pursued at the Full Hearing.  There is some ambiguity in paragraphs 3,4 and 5.  On the basis that there was a refusal to amend, that is a decision which we are of the view there are arguable grounds to be considered at the Full Hearing that that decision was wrong.

6	The remaining matter to go forward, described in the skeleton as ground 4, is a matter raised in Miss Braganza’s Notice of Appeal received on 8 March 2001.  The grounds are (g), (h) and (i) on the second page of those grounds.  We give leave to add to the existing Grounds of Appeal those 3 grounds under the heading “The Victimisation and Discrimination Complaints”.  We say no more other than that the arguments which are there found clearly set out in the skeleton argument and which have been repeated to us in relation to the comparator are arguable and should be argued before the Full Hearing.  Those are the matters which will be permitted to proceed.