[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Raichura v. London Borough of Harrow [2001] UKEAT 69_01_1501 (15 January 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/69_01_1501.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 69_1_1501, [2001] UKEAT 69_01_1501

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MS M INAM Representative 6 Potter House Brecknock Road London N19 5BD
For the Respondent	MR R GREENING (of Counsel) Instructed by: London Borough of Harrow Borough Secretary & Solicitors Dept PO Box 2 Civic Centre Station Road Harrow HA1 2UH


 


JUDGE D PUGSLEY

1. It is unnecessary for the purpose of this appeal to go into the long chronology of the Applicant's employment history with the Respondent Local Authority. I hope that this purpose suffices to say, and we are all grateful to the helpful Skeleton Arguments.
2. In December 1997 that Applicant made a claim in relation to racial harassment and racial discrimination. In November 1998 she made a further Employment Tribunal claim that she had been victimised and discriminated against. Thereafter she made a further claim, which is, as we understand it, and I hope we will be corrected if we are wrong, the case that is scheduled to be heard tomorrow.
3. The earlier two claims were struck out on the basis that the Applicant had not complied with Orders for Directions. There was an appeal against that which was heard before His Honour Judge Levy QC and two members. Leave was given for that matter to be pursued before a full Tribunal, but the terms of the Order are, as Mr Richard Greening who appears for the Respondent, has pointed out in Delphic terms, namely that the grounds of appeal are in accordance with the judgment. The judgment is not perfected. His Honour Judge Levy is not available for the immediate time, I understand, to perfect it.
4. We have come to this view. We can only intervene if what happens below is such that we consider it was a decision which was unreasonable in the Wednesbury Corporation case which might crudely be put as "We do not see how on earth any Tribunal properly applying itself to these facts would come to that view" or it was manifestly in breach of what is approved practice. It is very evenly balanced. If you postpone the hearing scheduled for tomorrow what you are doing is denying justice to the Applicant and also to those against whom she is making allegations because justice delayed is justice denied. It would be probably 12 months or so before the full hearing is heard and then after that, probably 3 - 6 months before it can be heard by the Tribunal.
5. On the other hand if the case goes on tomorrow, the Applicant can deal with matters that are relevant to the claims which form the subject matter of the other two claims. She is perfectly free to do that, Mr Greening accepts that, as long there is an evidential basis, it can be said that that is unsatisfactory. Why not hear all three cases together? Mr Greening may fairly say that if there were the option of hearing all three together, it is obviously a saving of time, expense and inconvenience appropriate to it, but he points out that that is not what we are dealing with. What we are dealing with is an 18 month possible delay, or the case is heard at the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the appeal is dismissed.
6. The Order made by the letter of the Chairman was that the application to adjourn could be re-argued at the hearing. We certainly think that is what should happen. The Chairman has not had the benefit of a hearing, Ms Inam who, if one may say so, was obviously of considerable command of the facts and very persuasive, nor has she had the benefit of hearing Mr Greening. I say "she" - I do not know who the case is listed before. What we are all united in the view, is this: we do not think that whatever has happened so far can be stigmatised and/or dignified as being said to be an error of law. This was a decision it was open for a Chairman to take. Whether we would have taken it is another matter; there are some more it can be said, arguments on both sides. Oh for armless lawyers, but there it is on the one hand, or you can have the arguments on the other hand.
7. We do not think that provides us with a proper forensic and jurisprudential basis to intervene. So we think the arguments should go back to the Tribunal tomorrow, no doubt Mr Greening will make forcefully, the points he has made and Ms Inam will no doubt make the point that if the Chairman is seeing that they need to know the judgment of the EAT to postpone it then parity of reasoning might suggest that they need to know the terms of the judgment before they commence the case. But this is not an easy matter and we do not think we can say that there is an error of law.
8. Renew your argument tomorrow, and it will be for the Chairman and members to decide what to do, if you want to renew it, you may not, you may discover some other matter. The appeal is dismissed.