Appeal No.	 EAT/865/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 12 November 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D PUGSLEY
MR D J HODGKINS CB
MR W MORRIS

MRS P IGBOLEKWO	APPELLANT

THE UNIVERSITY OF LUTON
MRS B BURDEN	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	Mr Rahman (of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Messrs Chase Christopher Roberts
Solicitors
257 Grays Inn Road
London WC1X 8QT	
For the Respondents	Mr Barklem (of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Messrs Mills & Reeve
Solicitors Francis House
112 Hills Road
Cambridge CB2 1PH	

JUDGE PUGSLEY:
1	This is a preliminary hearing of the case of Mrs Igbolekwo and the University of Luton and Mrs Burden.  It is not our task to rehear a case but at this stage to identify whether there is an issue of law which is arguable before a full Tribunal.  It cannot be too emphatically said that the Grounds of Appeal that are about as precise as spraying a field with a moving shotgun are of little assistance to this Tribunal.  

2	We have looked at the Grounds of Appeal and at the skeleton argument, and if we may say so, some of the propositions of facts we suspect are wrong and certainly some of the propositions of law are of dubious weight. 

3	But quite irrespective of those criticisms that we make there are matters that have been flagged up by Counsel for the Appellant, which we do think give cause for concern.  One of the difficulties that beset this Tribunal for which we have great sympathy is the fact that intermingled with an unfair dismissal claim is a race discrimination case.  Despite there being a Notice of Appeal on grounds submitted therein the appeal in respect of the race discrimination is not proceeded with, and we give leave for that to be withdrawn.  

4	We therefore deal with the appeal on the unfair dismissal.  We are concerned that at no stage, can we identify a paragraph that sums up concisely, comprehensively and clearly what was the reason for the dismissal.  We invited (in breach of the rules) counsel for the Respondent to see if he could find it.  We intend no disrespect to him but we do not find paragraph 10, nor paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 comprehensive reasons that sum up what was the reason. Many of these Grounds of Appeal are rambling, repetitious and in certain cases simply wrong in fact or wrong in law.  But nevertheless they are buried within the Grounds of Appeal three areas that we think are arguable points of law.  

5	The first issue is which raises an arguable issue of law, is whether there is any adequate finding in the decision as to whether the Appellant was in breach of contract by working for Barton Homes.  The second arguable ground is whether the Tribunal properly considered the extent of the investigation about what had happened at Barton Nursing Home and whether it was reasonable for an employer to dismiss on the basis of the information before the Employer about what had happened at Barton Homes.  

6	The third arguable ground is whether there is a proper consideration as to whether such procedural irregularities as the Tribunal found made the dismissal fair within the criteria of Section 98(4).  We give leave on the three amended grounds of appeal.

7	Mrs Burden is dismissed for the case since then is no appeal from the dismissal of the race discrimination finding.  Legal Aid assessment of the Appellants cost.