BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> British Midland Airways Ltd v. Floyd [1999] UKEAT 526_99_0807 (8 July 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/526_99_0807.html
Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 526_99_807, [1999] UKEAT 526_99_0807

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


BAILII case number: [1999] UKEAT 526_99_0807
Appeal No. EAT/526/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 8 July 1999

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

DR D GRIEVES CBE

MS B SWITZER



BRITISH MIDLAND AIRWAYS LTD APPELLANT

MRS R J FLOYD RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

© Copyright 1999


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellants MR J GALBRAITH-MARTEN
    (of Counsel)
    Ms J Hobson
    Messrs Dibb Lupton Alsop
    Solicitors
    Fountain Precinct, Balm Green
    Sheffield
    S Yorkshire S1 1RZ
       


     

    JUDGE D M LEVY QC: Mr Galbraith-Marten has appeared today on the preliminary ex-parte hearing of the appeal by British Midlands Airway Ltd against Mrs Lloyd from a decision of the Employment Tribunal sent to the parties on 1 March 1999. Notice of Appeal was dated 9 April 1999.

  1. Having heard his submissions we are of the opinion that it may not be an easy task for him to convince a panel hearing full argument that the first holding of the Industrial Tribunal (which is found in paragraph 8 of the decision) is wrong, namely that there was direct discrimination, but he has satisfied us that the point is arguable. There are other points identified in the judgment of the Employment Tribunal, which are likewise, arguable.
  2. We are not happy that the Notice of Appeal contained grounds properly set out and a fresh Notice of Appeal has been settled by Mr Galbraith-Marten. We give leave for an amended Notice of Appeal in this form to be served. It should be formerly served on the Respondents to the appeal within 10 days.
  3. Certain issues are raised in the amended Notice of Appeal as to evidence in the Tribunal below. We hope that it will not be necessary to ask the Chairman either for his comments as to whether matters were dealt with without argument from either side, or where it is said there was no evidence on certain issues or to get his notes of the evidence. However, it may be sensible to wait to see what happens as to asking direction from the Chairman to give notes until a further Respondent's Notice is received from the Respondents.
  4. The Respondents acted in person in the Employment Tribunal and this is a matter in which if it were possible for them to be represented at the hearing of the Appeal, it would be of assistance both to them and to the Tribunal because it may be difficult matters of law will be raised. That, of course, is not a matter on which we can say more.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/526_99_0807.html