[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Kalu v London Borough Of Hackney [2002] EWCA Civ 139 (5 February 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/139.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 139

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday, 5th February 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE PILL: This is an application for permission to appeal against decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal given on 26th October 2001. The tribunal dismissed appeals made by the present applicant, Mr Kalu, against decisions of the Employment Tribunal sitting at Stratford.
2. The main decision complained of is that given on 23rd April 2001. It followed hearings which, according to the record, occurred between 18th September and 13th October 2000 and 5th and 16th June 2001. The unanimous decision of the tribunal was that:

"... the complaints of the applicant that the respondents discriminated against him on account of his race and sex and victimised him are not made out and are dismissed. The complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages are not made out and are also dismissed."

3. The applicant was employed by the London Borough of Hackney, who were the respondents in those proceedings, as deputy superintendent of parking control. He is a British citizen, as are all his family. The applicant points out to me that he has been a school governor and, indeed, chairman of the governors of the school for a period of three years.
4. He has submitted bundles of documents to the court, including a skeleton argument, and has addressed the court orally this morning. His submission is that he has been subjected to a conspiracy to deprive him of his job. In the course of his employment he has suffered fraud and discrimination since 1996. Moreover, he has not been well served by the lawyers who have appeared for him. To illustrate that he has drawn my attention to a judgment given on 19th September 2001, whereby it was ordered that solicitors formerly instructed by Mr Kalu should return to him a sum of £4,000 he had paid to them together with interest.
5. Mr Kalu submits that the conspiracy arose because he challenged the managers about money missing from the Borough funds. The Borough, he submits, are colluding with a multi-national company to defraud the workers and the people of Hackney. He has a right not to be dismissed. Moreover, he cannot see public funds being misused and maintain a silence about it. Millions of pounds are involved, he believes.
6. He also refers in particular to a serious incident that occurred on 13th December 1999 between himself and a Mr Wright. He says that he was discriminated against because Mr Wright was not dismissed or even suspended by reason of his conduct on that occasion. It is submitted that TUPE regulations were breached. Reliance is placed upon several articles in the European Convention on Human Rights, now incorporated into English law, and in particular article 8.
7. The applicant has referred to a long letter which he wrote to the Employment Tribunal on 13th February 2001, while the hearing was still in progress. A number of complaints are made in that long letter, many of which are repeated in the skeleton argument dated 14th November 2001. A range of claims is made, some of which were not before the Employment Tribunal. There are references to the legislation providing for health and safety at work and other matters. The applicant submits that he should have permission to appeal in order that he can reveal the extent of the injustice which has been done.
8. The applicant's difficulty, as I have sought to put to him so that he can deal with it, is that there is an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and to this court only on a point of law. The law provides that remedies are available to a person with the complaints which the applicant makes. That remedy is by way of a hearing before an Employment Tribunal. From that Employment Tribunal there is an appeal only on a point of law.
9. The applicant submits that there was no fair trial before the Employment Tribunal. The evidence of respondents' witnesses was believed and his evidence was not believed. However, issues of fact are for that tribunal; and, like the Employment Appeal Tribunal, I do find, on a consideration of the decision of the Employment Tribunal, that they have given very detailed consideration to the evidence which was before them. Their decision runs to 67 paragraphs over almost 30 pages. The issues are carefully set out, the evidence given on behalf of the parties is summarised and reasoned conclusions are drawn.
10. The applicant submits that corruption has been present; that there has been corruption by lawyers. He makes reference to that, for example, at paragraph 36 of his affidavit. He says that he has sworn an affidavit as to corruption. That is very powerful, he submits, and merits the grant of permission to appeal. The tribunal, he submits, made a detailed attempt to bury the facts. He submits that their findings are distorted. Permission to appeal should be given so that the matter can be investigated in this court.
11. The applicant points out that he has now set up a business and that he is a man with qualifications. He submits, first, that his complaints should be taken seriously; second, that his treatment while employed by the London Borough of Hackney was entirely unsatisfactory. The applicant has put his points eloquently. He is clearly, if I may say so, a man of intelligence and ability.
12. I have not been able to detect in all the papers and in the oral submissions an arguable point of law. I have referred to the determination and reasons of the Employment Tribunal. As I have said, they are the body given by Parliament the duty of hearing evidence and making findings of fact. I can find no basis upon which it could be argued that the findings of the tribunal were in any way unfairly reached, still less that any corruption was present which affected the decisions which they reached.
13. The applicant submits that applicants like him never win at Stratford. I have no knowledge of the tribunal sitting in that place, but I do not accept that it is arguable, having considered the decision of the Employment Tribunal, that there is any defect in law which would permit the Court of Appeal to reverse the findings that they made or to order a further hearing.
14. There are three appeal bundles before me. There were also appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal upon the refusal of the Employment Tribunal to conduct a review of their decision and upon their refusal to permit the case put by the applicant against the London Borough of Hackney to be amended. I agree with the Employment Appeal Tribunal that on those issues the Employment Tribunal were entitled to make the decisions they did and it is not arguable before this court that those decisions would be reversed.
15. Thus in the case of all three bundles - and I have concentrated on the proposed appeal on the substantive issue - I can find no arguable grounds. Accordingly, the application for permission to appeal is refused.
Order: application for permission to appeal dismissed.