Appeal No.	 EAT/658/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On  1 December 1998

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR A C BLYGHTON
MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP

MR E DAWOOD	APPELLANT

(1) MR J ROSEVEARE (2) LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR E DAWOOD
74 Victoria Avenue
Redfield
Bristol BS5 9NH	

	JUDGE PETER CLARK:	This is an appeal by Mr Dawood against a decision of the London (North) Employment Tribunal, promulgated with extended reasons on 24 March 1998 following a 4 day hearing, dismissing his complaint of unlawful racial discrimination against the Respondent Council and its employee, Mr Roseveare.

	The nature of the appeal is a complaint that the Appellant did not have a fair hearing before the Employment Tribunal.  In support of that contention he takes essentially two points, which are set out in an affidavit which he swore in support of the appeal on 8 June 1998.  The first point appears in paragraph 5 of that affidavit in these terms:

“5	I was allowed to cross-examine John Roseveare.  I was not allowed by the chair to cross-examine Gerry Davis.  It was the chair’s belief that Gerry Davis could not, I believe his exact words were he (Gerry Davis) could not “assist” my case.  I pointed out tot he chair that unless I was allowed to cross-examine Gerry Davis I would indicate that I agreed with his statement.  I pointed out that I disagreed with Gerry Davis.  But the chair refused that I cross-examine him and released him."

	The particular part of the Tribunal’s findings in their extended reasons, to which Mr Dawood directs our attention is at paragraph 5(g), whether the Tribunal make these findings.  

“5(g)	There was ample evidence before the Tribunal that Mr Dawood did on occasions, act in an abrasive, high handed and arrogant manner.  Mr Davis informed the Tribunal that Mr Dawood was regarded as sexist by  “all the women in my office”.  He described Mr Dawood as coming “across as very superior - the rest of the world doesn’t know how to do things.”  On one occasion Mr Dawood secretly tape recorded a meeting he had with Mr Davis.”

	The Chairman has written to this Tribunal commenting on that allegation and deals with it be reference to the fact that Mr Dawood spent 55 minutes cross-examining Mr Davis on 11 March 1998.  Further, it appears that Mr Dawood applied direct to the Employment Tribunal for the Chairman’s notes of evidence and unusually was provided with copies of the Chairman’s handwritten notes.  We have seen copies of the notes of that cross-examination.

	Before us Mr Dawood accepts that he spent nearly one hour cross-examining Mr Davis but complains that he was not allowed to ask questions on matters that concerned him.  Given that he was provided with what seems to be an adequate opportunity to cross-examine that particular witness, we bear in mind that Tribunal Chairmen have a discretion as to how far they are prepared to permit cross-examination.  It seems to us in these circumstances that the first ground of complaint fails.  The second ground of complaint set out in paragraph 6 of the Appellant’s affidavit, is that the Respondents had submitted written statements of two potential witnesses, Sherman Sutherland and Ron Mundle, but at the hearing decided not to call those witnesses.

	It is of course a matter for the parties as to which witnesses they call to give evidence.  Mr Dawood tells us that he did not himself seek by way of a witness order or otherwise to call those witnesses.  In those circumstances, it seems to us that the second ground of complaint also fails.  

	Accordingly, we are unable to find any evidence of bias or an appearance of bias on the part of the Tribunal in the conduct of this case and so we shall dismiss the appeal.