[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Graham v Bristol City Council [1998] UKEAT 511_98_0807 (8 July 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/511_98_0807.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 511_98_0807, [1998] UKEAT 511_98_807

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MS C UNDERHILL (for Counsel) Avon & Bristol Law Centre 2 Moon Street Stokes Croft Bristol BS2 8QE
For the Respondents


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: The issue raised in this appeal is whether the Bristol Industrial Tribunal which heard a complaint by Mr Graham and others of indirect racial discrimination against Bristol City Council in January 1998 fell into error in dealing with the issue of justification.

The case concerns an historical system for issuing cab licenses in Bristol. The Tribunal found that the Respondent applied a requirement or condition to those on the waiting list for licenses which had a disproportionate impact on black applicants, such as Mr Graham, but which was justified after balancing the interests of widows of licensed proprietors, who were permitted to renew their late husbands licence, as against the discriminatory effect on the complainants.

The main point which is taken is that the Tribunal misapplied the test of justification laid down by the Court of Appeal in Hampson v Department of Education & Science [1989] ICR 179. It is submitted that the test requires the Tribunal to balance objectively the discriminatory effect of the condition on the complainant on the one hand and the reasonable needs of the party who applied it on the other. However laudable it may be to provide an informal pension for widows of cab proprietors, that is not a need of a licensing authority. There is a further point taken; that the Tribunal has not given sufficient reasons to show what legal test of justification it has applied and what factors were taken into account in carrying out the balancing exercise. In addition, in paragraph 6(3) of the Notice of Appeal, it is contended that the Tribunal failed to deal with a further element in the Appellant's case, to be found particularly in paragraph 16 of the amended particulars of his complaint, served with the Originating Application.

It seems to us that this appeal should proceed on all three grounds set out in the Notice of Appeal to a full appeal hearing. We shall direct that the case be listed for four hours, with a 'Not Before 11.30' marking. Category B. There will be mutual exchange of skeleton arguments between the parties not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the hearing of the full appeal. Copies of those skeleton arguments to be lodged with this Tribunal at the same time.