Appeal No.	 EAT/427/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 20 February 1997

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MR P A L PARKER CBE
MR R TODD

MR R HORNE	APPELLANT

(1) BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC &
(2) MR R BLOWER	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MS K MONAGHAN
(of Counsel)
Commission for Racial Equality
Elliot House
10/12 Allington Street
London
SW1E 5EH	
For the Respondents	MR P THORNTON
(of Counsel)
BT Group Legal Services
Redwing House
Timbold Drive
Kents Hill Park
Milton Keynes
MK7 6TT	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):   Ms Monaghan applies for leave to amend the Notice of Appeal to add what she frankly accepts is a new ground, which is to be found at page 8 of her skeleton argument, to the effect that the reasons given by the Industrial Tribunal for failing to draw an inference on racial grounds are inadequate.

	It is rightly pointed out to us that there might be some criticism, which could be attached to the timing of this application for leave to amend, but very frankly Mr Thornton has, quite rightly indicated that he cannot say that he is prejudiced by the fact that this application is made at a relatively late time.

	Accordingly, we grant leave to amend.  We think that it would be unfortunate that any party, after this hearing, should be able to say to themselves “If only this point had been raised the outcome might have been different”.

	In relation to the other point.  That is not an application which Ms Monaghan has raised before us.  The plea, which is made in the Notice of Appeal is, in our view, quite sufficiently formed, namely the Tribunal’s conclusion that all the white employees who are permitted to substitute were marked “Fitted for promotion”, whereas the Appellant was not, was perverse.  

	In normal circumstances, as I say, that would have been a wholly sufficient ground in the Notice of Appeal, but in the original Notice particulars were given of that contention.  It is pointed out by Mr Thornton that in the original Notice of Appeal there were, I think, no references to employee K, and he invites us to approach the case on the basis that she should have to ask for leave to amend to add that employee.  If such application was made, he again says that he could not urge on us that he would be prejudiced if it were granted.

	In our view, without in any way laying down any guidance for the future, we think that it might be tidier, for the purposes of this case, if the Notice of Appeal was to be amended to include within it the particulars in relation to employee K, and although not specifically asked for by Ms Monaghan at this time, had she asked for leave, we would have given her leave, and do give her leave, to make that addition to the original Notice of Appeal so that there can be no misunderstandings about what is open to argument and what is not.