[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Tullett v The Page Group & Ors [1997] UKEAT 792_97_0910 (9 October 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/792_97_0910.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 792_97_0910, [1997] UKEAT 792_97_910

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR WARD (Representative)


 


JUDGE BYRT QC: This is an ex-parte Preliminary Hearing in an appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at Brighton. Its decision was promulgated in May of this year. It dismissed claims of sex discrimination against the four first Respondents, but found proved a case of sex discrimination against the fifth respondent, Billy White, and awarded £50 damages to the Appellant for hurt feelings. It also dismissed a claim for victimisation.

We have heard argument from Mr Ward in support of his contention that this case should go forward to a full hearing. We have come to the conclusion that the case should go forward but in a limited way only.

First of all, we think there is an arguable case, at least against the first Respondent, on the basis that the separate instances of sex discrimination between December 1995 and July 1996 were reflective of a policy towards Mrs Tullet; secondly, on the basis that they might be vicariously responsible for the sexually discriminative behaviour of Billy White. Thirdly, we think it is right that the matter should go to a full hearing to reconsider the amount of £50 compensation, awarded against Billy White in respect of the remarks he made following the posting of the postcard on the company noticeboard. So the matters will go forward on those three separate issues in relation to the two remaining Respondents, namely The Page Group and Billy White.

We also direct that the Chairman of the Tribunal be asked to state what evidence there was, concerning the incident at Christmas 1995, to the effect that the Appellant's husband had to cut short his tour of Korea because of the Appellant's discomfiture and distress in connection with a t-shirt; that on that same occasion the Appellant joined in the banter saying that remarks made to her reminded her of her husband's absence: that the Appellant made no complaint to the Respondents about the incident.

It is further directed that this case be listed as a Category C case with a time estimate of a half day.