[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Kapadia v London Borough Of Lambeth [1998] UKEAT 1004_98_1911 (19 November 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/1004_98_1911.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 1004_98_1911

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR S NEAMAN (of Counsel) Messrs Copley Clark & Bennett Solicitors 36 Grove Road Sutton Surrey SM1 1BS
For the Respondent	MR D BASU (of Counsel) Lambeth Legal Services London Borough of Lambeth Town Hall Brixton Hill London SW2 1RW


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON: This has been a directions hearing and it arises in this way. By a decision which was promulgated on 18 June 1998, an Employment Tribunal concluded by a majority that the Applicant did not suffer a disability within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

The result of them taking that view was that disability discrimination issues were not then precedent to the other part of the Applicant's complaint, namely, that his employers had unfairly dismissed him.

The Industrial Tribunal has set two days in January, 14 and 15 of January for the hearing of the extent issues. In accordance with our present practice, when a notice of appeal have been filed against the disability discrimination decision, we stayed the appeal pending the conclusion of the Employment Tribunal proceedings. If we were to allow the appeal, then there would have to be yet a further hearing between the parties before an Employment Tribunal and it has been suggested to us that the stay is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the position.

If we allow the appeal, then the disability case and the unfair dismissal case could be taken together thus avoiding the need for parties to give evidence more than once. Having considered the submissions of the parties, I am of the view that the stay should be lifted in this case and that it would be preferable if the appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal was heard and determine before the Employment Tribunal proceeded to hear the balance of the Applicant's complaint.

I have not ascertained the listing position for the appeal. I think it is unlikely that it can be listed before the date fixed for the Employment Tribunal hearing in January.

Both parties are of the view that it would be desirable that the appeal should come on before the Employment Tribunal resumes consideration of the case and I would anticipate in those circumstances that the date for hearing will meet the requirements as I have indicated them. For present purposes I simply lift the stay, direct that it comes on as soon as practicable on an estimated time basis of half a day.