[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Saunderson v The Body Shop & Ors [1998] UKEAT 816_98_1310 (13 October 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/816_98_1310.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 816_98_1310

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Ms Jane Mulcahy (of Counsel)


 


JUDGE JOHN BYRT QC: This is a preliminary hearing in relation to an appeal against the decision promulgated in June of this year of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Southampton. By that decision, the Tribunal held that certain allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination relating to events before March 1997 were proved, the Tribunal having decided it was just and equitable that they should consider those matters. However, those allegations relating to events after September 1997 failed, as also did those of victimisation and constructive dismissal.

This was a hearing which lasted for 7 days and we have absolutely no doubt that it was conducted competently by Counsel on both sides. We do not suppose any time was wasted; so the case was complex and the facts took a long time to elicit. In writing up the Tribunal's extended reasons, the Chairman obviously took enormous trouble to deliver a coherent and detailed exposition of their findings and that has impressed us. But equally so, we have been addressed by Miss Mulcahy, Counsel on behalf of the Appellant, and she has satisfied us that in relation to each of the matters in respect of which the Appellant failed before the Tribunal, there are arguable points of law which should go through to a full hearing.

In relation to each of those headings, there are a range of sub-headings relating to different aspects of the facts of the case. They all hang together as justification of the Appellant's contentions about victimisation, constructive dismissal and sex discrimination. We have listened to Miss Mulcahy's submissions this morning with a view to seeing whether we could sensibly limit the grounds of appeal, but we have decided it is not really practicable to do so. Accordingly, we give leave for the appeal to proceed on the basis of the notice of appeal as it stands. That is the decision.