Appeal No.	EAT/1120/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 26 March 1999
Judgment delivered on 14 April 1999

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLLAND
MR W MORRIS
MRS R A VICKERS

MRS B DRISKEL	APPELLANT

PENINSULA BUSINESS SERVICES LTD & OTHERS	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	IN PERSON	

	MR JUSTICE HOLLAND:     
	By an 1TI dated 12th September 1996 the Applicant, Mrs Barbara Driskel complained of sexual discrimination and sexual harassment.  By a further 1TI dated 22nd November 1996 she complained of unfair dismissal.  Peninsula Business Service Ltd were named as Respondents to each complaint, together with named individuals, prominent being Mr Michael Huss.  In the event after an astonishingly prolonged hearing, a Industrial Tribunal sitting at Manchester dismissed all the complaints, doing so by way of Extended Reasons dated the 10th June 1998.  The Applicant sought a Review (to no effect) and appealed to this Tribunal.  That Appeal has come before us by way of a Preliminary Hearing and in the result we direct that it be listed for a further inter parte hearing.  The essential point that concerns us is as to whether, having regard to its findings of fact, the Industrial Tribunal correctly directed itself as to what was required as a matter of law to sustain a complaint made pursuant to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.  We draw attention to the findings of fact favourable to the Applicant made in the following paragraphs of the Extended Reasons:

	Paragraphs (xi), (xiii), (xiv), (xv)and (xxiv).

	Given that none such in the event served to substantiate the complaint, what direction as to law underpinned the decision?  In that context this Tribunal draws quizzical attention to (by way of example) the reasoning set out in paragraph (xvii).  With more hesitation, we give leave to raise the unfair dismissal issue:  given substantiated allegations against Mr Huss, what follows?

	Leave aside the matters which account for our decision, this Tribunal may wish to use the hearing of this Appeal to express concern with the way in which these complaints were heard and to give guidance as to future conduct of like matters.  There was, seemingly, no or no effective preliminary hearing directed to defining issues, the number of hearings looks absurd and suggests a loss of control, whilst the length and style of the Extended Reasons strongly suggests that wood and trees had become all one blur.  Listing:  at least half a day;  category B:  and, we would suggest, before a Tribunal chaired by the President or a High Court Judge.  We reiterate our hope that the Appellant, as she now is, obtains legal representation for the appeal.