[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Augustin v London Borough Of Waltham Forest & Ors [1999] UKEAT 636_98_0105 (1 May 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/636_98_0105.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 636_98_0105, [1999] UKEAT 636_98_105

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE CLARK: The Appellant, who is a black woman, commenced employment with the Respondent, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, in September 1991. At the time when she presented her complaint of unlawful Race and Sex Discrimination to the Employment Tribunal on 27^th August 1996 she held the post of Departmental Training Officer. The particulars of her complaint, which were many and various, stretched back to the commencement of her employment. When the complaint came on for hearing before an Employment Tribunal sitting at London (North) on 11^th February 1998, the Tribunal ruled that they would not consider any complaints prior to 28^th May 1996, that is outside the 3 month primary limitation period. The Tribunal went on to dismiss her claims by a decision with extended reasons promulgated on 25^th March 1998.

1. Against that decision, she appealed and the Appeal came on for Preliminary Hearing before a division of the Employment Appeal Tribunal presided over by Morison P on 23^rd October 1998. In a judgment given on that day, the Preliminary Hearing was adjourned on this sole basis. It was not clear to the Employment Appeal Tribunal whether the effect of the Tribunal's ruling on the time point was to preclude the Appellant from leading evidence as to incidents arising outside the 3 month period, ending with the presentation of the Originating Application. Accordingly, directions were given that the Appellant file an Affidavit which should be copied to both the Respondent and the Chairman for their comments. That has been done and the matter is now restored for Preliminary Hearing before us.
2. Without explanation the Appellant neither appears nor is she represented today. Having considered the Appellant's Affidavit sworn on 6^th November 1998 the Respondent's observations dated 1^st December 1998 and the comments of the Chairman and her lay colleagues on the Employment Tribunal, it seems to us that it is potentially arguable that the Tribunal fell into error by refusing to admit in evidence incidents relied on outside the limitation period, not to establish a cause of action but as background in support of the complaints of discrimination which were made in time. (See Din –v- Carrington Viyella [1982] ICR 256, 261 E-G per Browne Wilkinson J).
3. We are concerned as to whether or not the Appellant wishes to pursue this Appeal. Accordingly, we shall direct that within 21 days of the promulgation of this Order, the Appellant or her representative is to write to the Registrar at the Employment Appeal Tribunal indicating whether or not she wishes to pursue her Appeal. If such an indication is given, then the matter will proceed to a Full Hearing, listed for ½ day, category C. There will be the usual direction for exchange of skeleton arguments, not less that 14 days before the date fixed for the hearing. Copies of those skeleton arguments to be lodged with this Tribunal.
4. However, if no communication is received from the Appellant within the 21 day period we have specified, we shall take it that she does not wish to pursue this Appeal and in those circumstances, the Appeal will stand dismissed.