Appeal No. EAT/1269/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 27 November 2001

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
MISS C HOLROYD
MR D A LAMBERT

MS E VICTOR-DAVIS	APPELLANT

LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MS C RAYNES 
(Of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Messrs Russell Jones &
Walker
Solicitors
4th Floor, Brazennose House West
Brazennose Street
Manchester  M2 5AZ	

MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY

1.	This is the Preliminary Hearing of the Appellant’s appeal from an Employment Tribunal following a lengthy hearing which considered some six days of evidence in April 2001 and over two further days considered written submissions.  It was a case that was put on the basis of race and sex discrimination including an allegation of victimisation but the Appellant was not successful before the Employment Tribunal.
 
2.	Miss Rayner who represented her before the Employment Tribunal and has represented her again today prepared a very helpful skeleton argument for today’s proceedings.  We rapidly came to the view that three of the points raised by the skeleton argument merited a full hearing namely the liability if any of the Respondents for the action of Mrs Ware, the question of victimisation and the question of an extension of time.
 
3.	We took the provisional view that the Appellant may face far more difficulty in relation to the fourth issue referred to as Issue 2 in Miss Rayner’s skeleton argument which concerns whether the Appellant’s complaints of race discrimination were dealt with adequately by the Respondent.  Much of this centred upon the role and evidence of Mrs Howard.  It seems to us that it may well be the case that the Employment Tribunal explained sufficiently in paragraph 35 of their decision why it was that they were persuaded by Mrs Howard’s evidence.

4.	However, having heard Miss Rayner we now take the view that it would not be appropriate to exclude that ground of appeal from consideration at the full hearing.  Accordingly we shall permit this matter to go forward for a full hearing.  We make it clear that we are not to be taken as indicating any views as to the likely outcome of that hearing on any of these issues.  We simply say that we find them to be arguable.  The hearing to which this order will give rise will on Miss Rayner’s estimate go into a second day and may indeed take two full days.  We are a little cautious about that at this stage.  We suggest that the appropriate time estimate at this stage is one day plus.

5.	There will be an order that the Chairman be requested to provide his notes of the evidence of Mrs Howard.  The usual order as to skeleton arguments will apply.  In addition we take the view that because of the size of this case before the Tribunal below and the fact that it is only in relation to certain parts of the decision albeit very important parts that the appeal is being mounted that very great care is going to have to be taken in the preparation of skeleton arguments and a proper working bundle of documents for the Employment Tribunal hearing the case.

6.	Accordingly and exceptionally we think it is a case which would benefit from a directions hearing once the parties have had an opportunity of considering their positions.  It follows really from what we are saying that such a directions hearing should take place after skeleton arguments are to hand but in sufficient time for any directions to which a directions hearing gives rise to be complied with before the full hearing.

7.	In those circumstances it seems to us that the proper course is for skeleton arguments in this case to be lodged and exchanged two months before the hearing date and that a directions hearing should take place about six weeks before the full hearing date.  If by that time or sooner the parties disagree with the time estimate of one day plus for the full hearing they should immediately make their unease known to the Registrar.