Appeal No.	 EAT/599/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 20 July 1998

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MR R JACKSON
MISS D WHITTINGHAM

MRS C COURT	APPELLANT

GLOUCESTERSHIRE ROYAL NHS TRUST	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR A GHANTI
(Representative)
Race Equality Council for Gloucestershire
15 Brunswick Road
Gloucester GL1 1HG	
For the Respondents	NO APPEARANCE BY
OR REPRESENTATION
ON BEHALF OF
THE RESPONDENTS	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):     This is an appeal against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal Chairman sitting alone, who on 10 February 1998 indicated that it was not just and equitable to extend time, in relation to part of the complaint which Mrs Court was making, against her former employers and a named individual.

	Her case is that she has been discriminated against on the grounds of race in relation to various promotion opportunities.  In relation to one promotion opportunity she made her complaint within time, but wishes to say that there were other opportunities for her which she was also denied on the grounds of her race.  

	This was not, in our view, an appropriate case for the Chairman to have held a preliminary issue hearing under Rule 6.  It seems to us that where there is a complaint which falls within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, but there arises a question as to whether the earlier complaints which are out of time, give rise to a cause of action (in the exercise of discretion to extend time) or merely give rise to evidence which can be of assistance in the determination of the principal issue, is best answered after the whole of the evidence has been heard on those issues.

	If Mrs Court proves that she was discriminated against on the grounds of race, in relation to the incident which was within time, and proves that race was a reason for her non-promotion in relation to the other opportunities of which she makes complaint, then the Industrial Tribunal will be able to apply their minds as to whether it would be just and equitable to give her a remedy in relation to the earlier events, having regard to any explanation that she puts forward as to why she had not presented her complaint to an Industrial Tribunal earlier.  It seems to us, as we have indicated in our preliminary decision, that that is a decision which is best taken by the Industrial Tribunal when they have found the facts.

	Accordingly, the appeal will be allowed.  The question as to whether it is just and equitable for her to proceed, in relation to the other complaints, must be heard and determined by a full Industrial Tribunal.  That is, a Chairman sitting with lay members at the determination of the complaint, which is within time, and she will be entitled, as the Industrial Tribunal Chairman has already indicated, to adduce any evidence that she wishes to adduce relating to those earlier incidents.  When the facts have been found the Industrial Tribunal can arrive at their decision on whether it is just and equitable to extend time.  That issue of course may not arise if, on the facts, her complaint is rejected on the merits.