[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Whitmore & Anor v. HM Prison Service [2002] UKEAT 1185_01_1704 (17 April 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1185_01_1704.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1185_1_1704, [2002] UKEAT 1185_01_1704

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR P MEAD (Of Counsel) Instructed By: Messrs Lees Lloyd Whitley Solicitors Castle Chambers Castle Street Liverpool L2 9TJ


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK:

1. This appeal is before us for preliminary hearing. It is brought by Mr and Mrs Whitmore, the Applicants before the Nottingham Employment Tribunal, against that Tribunal's decision promulgated with extended reasons on 8 August 2001, dismissing their complaints of victimisation contrary to section 2 of the Race Relations Act 1976 brought against their employer, Her Majesty's Prison Service, the Respondent.
2. By their Grounds of Appeal, further elucidated by Mr Mead is his written skeleton argument and in oral submission before us, the Appellants take the following broad points

(1) the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for their decision

(2) the Tribunal failed to determine each and every one of the complaints of victimisation advanced by them

(3) the Tribunal was wrong in law to conclude that when raising grievances against the Applicants, which on the Tribunal's finding may have amounted to victimisation, certain governors employed by the Respondent at the prison at which the Appellants worked were not acting in the course of their employment.

3. Dealing with the last point first, we are of the view that the Tribunal's finding that the governors were not acting in the course of their employment in taking out grievances is susceptible to argument as a matter of law. On this ground alone the appeal should proceed to a full hearing. As to the second point, we shall allow that contention to proceed, but with a caveat that the Tribunal chairman, Mr David Price, should be asked to comment by reference to his notes of the hearing on whether the matters raised at paragraphs 6.1 and 6.5 of the grounds of appeal were in fact raised before the Tribunal below. In the event of dispute the Respondent is permitted to provide comments also, within 21 days after their receipt of the chairman's comments.
4. In these circumstances and for completeness we shall permit the adequacy of reasons argument, relating to grounds 6.1 and 6.3 to proceed also.
5. It follows that there will be a full appeal hearing in respect of all grounds of appeal presently advanced in the Notice of Appeal. For the purposes of that hearing we give the following directions. The appeal will be listed for 3 hours, the parties to notify the Registrar if that time estimate appears to be inaccurate. Category B. There will be exchange of skeleton arguments not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing. Copies of those skeleton arguments to be lodged with this court at the same time.