[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Teo v. Chang Hwa Commercial Bank Ltd [1999] UKEAT 209_99_1905 (19 May 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/209_99_1905.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 209_99_1905

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MS TESS GILL (OF COUNSEL) (Instructed by) Principal Litigation Officer Commission for Racial Equality Elliott House 10/12 Allington Street London SW1E 5EH


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK: The starting point in this Appeal is that in relation to her complaint of racial discrimination the Appellant, who is of Singaporean nationality, wished to compare the treatment which she allegedly received from the Respondent Bank, her former Employer, with that metered out to actual or hypothetical comparitors of different nationality, namely Taiwanese and Chinese.

1. The Employment Tribunal in para 4 of their Extended Reasons, appear to have proceeded on the basis that the Appellant belonged to the same racial group as her comparators namely, Chinese. We observe that the definition of racial grounds in Section 3 of the 1976 Act includes nationality. Ms Gill submits that that arguable error of law permeates the remainder of the decision. Thus, although on the face of it at para 18 of the Reasons the Tribunal found that there was no reliable evidence that the Appellant was treated in any different way to all the other members of staff, irrespective of sex or race, Ms Gill has persuaded us that it is arguable that the Tribunal failed to make sufficient findings of fact in relation to the issues of training and substitution to justify that conclusion.
2. Accordingly, the question both of different treatment and/or racial grounds arises for consideration in this Appeal. Further, she submits by reference to para 23 of the Reasons, that the Tribunal's finding that the Appellant had caused or contributed to her dismissal, which they found to be unfair, was on the grounds that she had wilfully refused to carry out a reasonable and lawful instruction of her Employer. Ms Gill submits that if her appeal against the finding of racial discrimination succeeds then that would have a knock-on effect on the Tribunal's finding that the instruction to substitute was both reasonable and lawful.
3. In these circumstances, it seems to us that this Appeal ought properly to proceed to a full hearing on the amended grounds which have been put before us by Ms Gill. We shall grant leave to the Appellant to amend her grounds of appeal in the form of that draft. We shall direct that this case be listed for 1 full day, category B. There will be exchange of skeleton arguments between the parties not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the Full Appeal Hearing. Copies of those skeleton arguments to be lodged at the same time with this Tribunal. There are no further directions and in particular, we do not regard Chairman's Notes of Evidence as necessary in this Appeal.