Appeal No.	EAT/1002/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 23 March 1998

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
MR J R CROSBY
MR R JACKSON

MR V EDOMI	APPELLANT

LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR C ISMAEL
(of Counsel)
Messrs Jay Vadher & Co
Solicitors
Victoria House
185 Romford Road
London
E15 4JF	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):	The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point or points of law raised by the Notice of Appeal in this case. It is an appeal against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held on Stratford on 30th April 1997 presided by Mr Geoffrey Heggs. By that decision the Industrial Tribunal concluded that the applicant’s application for unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of race should be dismissed as the tribunal had no jurisdiction.

	In relation to his complaint of unfair dismissal, the Industrial Tribunal concluded that Mr Edomi did not have the requisite two year period of continuous service. He had as at the date of his dismissal more than one year’s continuous service, and therefore, it seems to us that the Seymour-Smith question is raised. On that ground alone we would allow the matter to proceed before us. 

	In addition to that, Mr Ismael of Counsel on his behalf would wish to argue that as the contract of employment was dated as from 1988 (because, presumably, the employers believed that his service which the predecessor local authority was to aggregated with that at the London of  Borough of Hackney) the question of jurisdiction should be resolved in favour of Mr Edomi. He places particular reliance on a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in 1994 which reviewed a decision of an Industrial Tribunal where the Students Union after date of judgment wished to argue that service with the University itself should not be aggregated with that of the Students Union. The Employment Appeal Tribunal refused to interfere with the Industrial Tribunal’s decision, that point not having been taken before the Industrial Tribunal. It may be that certain things were said in the case to indicate that the requisite period of continuous service is not or may not be a jurisdictional requirement. 

	The decision of the Industrial Tribunal in relation to the discrimination complaint rested on the fact that the complaint had not been presented to the tribunal within time, and the Industrial Tribunal indicated that they were not prepared to extend time. 

	Mr Ismael would wish to argue, firstly, that the tribunal erred in law in concluding that the application was presented out of time. We are not sure whether that is likely to be an argument which will occupy this Court for some time, but we are not prepared to shut him out from arguing it. Secondly, he would wish to argue that the Industrial Tribunal have not properly considered the question of their discretion as to whether to extend time. He would wish to say that the Industrial Tribunal have misdirected itself by not addressing the relative injustice to the parties were time to be extended or not, as the case might be, and have failed to have regard to the other factors referred to in the analogous limitation legislation.

	We give him leave to argue that issue as well. It will be appreciated that in giving leave in this way, we are not indicating one way or the other as to what the outcome of the appeal will be. We cannot do that until we have heard what both parties have had to say on these issue.

	This is a Category C case, if Judge Peter Clark were available to deal with it, I would like him to deal with it. No Notes of Evidence are required. The estimated hearing time for argument will be two hours.