Appeal No.	 EAT/1431/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 11 April 1997

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MR E HAMMOND OBE
MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP

MR G NAGARAJAN	APPELLANT

NORTH LONDON RAILWAYS & OTHERS	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	IN PERSON	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):     We have come to the conclusion that there are two arguable points of law raised by this Notice of Appeal.  The first is that the Industrial Tribunal have failed to direct their minds to part of Mr Nagarajan’s complaint, which was that his dismissal was by reason of him having raised a grievance against one of his managers and thus, his dismissal was an act of victimisation, that is that it was by reason of him having done a “protected act”.

	Paragraph 5 of the Industrial Tribunal in the first sentence will have to be looked at at the full hearing to see whether that is a sufficient and satisfactory way for the Industrial Tribunal to have approached that issue.

	The second matter which we consider that Mr Nagarajan should be permitted to argue is the question of the order for costs, not, I wish to make it plain, an order for costs in principle, in the sense that they were entitled to arrive at the conclusion that it might be appropriate to award costs, but whether they have properly directed their minds to the question as to whether Mr Nagarajan’s means enabled him to meet any order for costs of this amount.

	It seems to us that it is arguable that the Tribunal should not have made an order for costs in this amount without having first satisfied themselves that it was within Mr Nagarajan’s capacity to pay such a sum.

	For those two discrete reasons, we think this matter should go for a full hearing but limited, and limited only to those two points.