[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Sirdaw v London Borough Of Hackney [1994] UKEAT 635_93_3003 (30 March 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/635_93_3003.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 635_93_3003

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 635_93_3003

Appeal No. EAT/635/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 30 March 1994

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MR T S BATHO

MR P DAWSON OBE

---

MRS S SIRDAW          APPELLANT

LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR I SEN


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): Mr Sen, we are going to take an unusual course in your appeal.

The first point is that we are satisfied that you have an arguable point of law on the time limit appeal. That is an appeal against the decision notified on the 22 June. We think it is arguable in two aspects. First, that there was a continuing act of discrimination, not, as the Tribunal held, a one-off event. We are not expressing any final view about whether you are right. The second aspect is the new point you have raised on the basis of the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Clark v Hampshire Electro Plating Co.Ltd page 3 of that transcript. We are satisfied that there is an arguable point that, even if this was a one-off act of discrimination, the Tribunal did not take into account all the relevant matters in deciding whether or not to extend the period.

The second point is that, contrary to normal practice, we are not directing that this proceeds to a full hearing. We direct that this is adjourned as a preliminary hearing for further consideration, once this Tribunal knows the reasons of the Industrial Tribunal, relating to the review which they conducted on the 7 March 1994. At the moment we do not know the findings on that review. We do not know the reasons for their decision. All we know from you is that they have indicated that the review is refused.

The reason we are adjourning the preliminary hearing, rather than directing that it goes to a full hearing, is that the finding and reasons of the Industrial Tribunal on the review may affect the question whether you are entitled to pursue an appeal at all. That is relevant to the question I raised about the effect of the decision notified on the 24 June on page 17 of the bundle. The decision to dismiss your Originating Application on withdrawal on agreed terms, may have the effect that the whole of the Originating Application, relating to the seven complaints have been withdrawn, not just to the three complaints argued after the earlier decision; The effect may be that the whole of the Originating Application has been withdrawn, and that you are not at liberty to pursue an appeal.

We will enquire from the Regional Office of the Industrial Tribunals what the reasons and findings are of the decision on the review. We will then notify you, and possibly, Hackney as well, as to how we will proceed on the adjournment. It is no service to your client to allow the matter to go to a full hearing with a risk on costs, if there is a preliminary objection that all the proceedings have been settled. We have not dismissed your appeal. We have adjourned the preliminary hearing to await further information about the outcome of the review hearing. The outcome of the review hearing may have a direct impact on whether you are allowed to proceed with your appeal.