BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Gbaja-Biamila v DHL INT (UK) Ltd & Ors [1999] UKEAT 1224_98_1002 (10 February 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1224_98_1002.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1224_98_1002 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR D CHADWICK
MR P DAWSON OBE
| APPELLANT | |
(2) MR P STREAK (3) MR C HONOUR |
RESPONDENTS |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | MS S DREW (of Counsel) MR J PHIPPS Oxfordshire Employment Rights Barton Neighbourhood Centre Underhill Circus Oxford OX3 9LS |
JUDGE CLARK: This appeal raises three questions as to the Reading Employment Tribunal's findings on compensation following an earlier decision that the three first named Respondents had unlawfully discriminated against the Appellant on the grounds of his race. They are (1) whether the Tribunal's award of compensation for injury to feelings and the effect of the discrimination on the Appellant's health was impermissibily low and whether the Tribunal took a wrong approach to that head of damage; (2) whether an award of aggravated damages ought additionally to have been made in this case against one or more of the three Respondents; and (3) whether separate awards ought to have been made against the individual second and third Respondents.
Although valuable guidance on these questions is to be found in the judgment of Smith J in Armitage v Johnston (1997) IRLR 162, having considered the skeleton argument prepared by Ms Drew and her helpful oral submissions today, we consider that this is an appropriate case in which to revisit these matters at a full inter-partes hearing. For the avoidance of doubt, the matter will proceed on the three issues which we have identified. The fourth ground of appeal relating to recommendations having been abandoned and as to the second and third issues, we grant Ms Drew's application for leave to amend her Notice of Appeal to argue in the alternative that the findings made were perverse.
For the purpose of the full hearing, the case will be listed for one full day, Category A. There will be exchange of skeleton arguments between the parties not less than 14 days from the date fixed for the full appeal hearing. Copies of those skeleton arguments to be lodged at the same time with this Tribunal. There are no further directions, in particular, the Chairman's notes are not required in this case.
