[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> P v S & Anor [1997] UKEAT 124_97_2801 (28 January 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/124_97_2801.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 124_97_2801

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR T KIBLING (Of Counsel) Tyndallwoods Albany House Hurst Street Birmingham B5 4BD
For the Respondents	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT The Solicitor Cornwall County Council County Hall Truro TR1 3AY


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is an urgent matter. There is a history to this case. The Applicant claimed that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of sex, specifically of her sexual orientation. The Industrial Tribunal referred the question at issue to the European Court for their opinion as to whether an employer may lawfully discriminate against an employee who has indicated an intention to have a gender reassignment. It ruled that such treatment fell within the scope of the Equal Treatment Directive. In the light of that Court's decision the Applicant's application for compensation against her former employers Cornwall County Council is currently before the Industrial Tribunal.

The appeal is concerned with the power of an Industrial Tribunal to make a restricted reporting order. Such an order has been in place since the complaint was made. However the Tribunal reconsidered the matter at the commencement of the remedies hearing and in the light of certain rule changes, came to the conclusion that the order should be lifted at this stage. The Applicant wishes to appeal that order which was made yesterday and the matter came before us as a matter of urgency.

Not surprisingly the Tribunal were of the view that by lodging an appeal the Applicant was seeking, in effect, to obtain the relief which had been refused "by the back-door". Accordingly we were informed that the order was to be lifted unless by 11.00 a.m. this morning we made an interim order continuing the restricted reporting order until after the full appeal has been heard. Having briefly looked at the matter we are of the view that the Applicant has an arguable appeal and that pending the appeal, the restricted reporting order should continue in force. We make that order and have communicated that to the Industrial Tribunal.

Whilst it is entirely a matter for the Tribunal itself to determine, we would respectfully encourage it to continue with the remedies hearing during the time set aside for it. We have been told that the parties wish the hearing to proceed and that the local press are content without prejudice to their rights to argue the point at a later date, to attend and report the hearing meanwhile, subject to the restriction contained in the order.

We ourselves are satisfied that this is not a case where it can be fairly thought that the Applicant is seeking by lodging the appeal to achieve what she has failed to achieve at the Tribunal. It seems to us that there is a good arguable point which merits full consideration by this Court, namely the ambit of Rule 14 of The Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure. In any event it may be that through time lost or for other reasons the Tribunal will not have concluded its hearing on remedies before the appeal is heard by this Court.