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

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Madden v. Preferred Technical Group-Cha Ltd & Anor [2000] UKEAT 1215_99_1402 (14 February 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/1215_99_1402.html
Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 1215_99_1402

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


BAILII case number: [2000] UKEAT 1215_99_1402
Appeal No. EAT/1215/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 14 February 2000

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK

LORD GLADWIN OF CLEE CBE JP

MRS D M PALMER



MR GEORGE MADDEN APPELLANT

PREFERRED TECHNICAL GROUP-CHA LIMITED
(2) MR MICHAEL GUEST
RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

© Copyright 2000


    APPEARANCE

     

    For the Appellant Mr T Kibling
    (of Counsel)
    The Commission for Racial Equality
    Third Floor
    Lancaster House
    67 Newhall Street
    Birmingham
    B3 1NA
       

     
    JUDGE CLARK:-
  1. The Appellant, who is of Irish national origin, was employed by the Respondent from 22nd February 1993 until his summary dismissal on 23rd February 1998.
  2. On the 24th December 1996 he had presented a complaint of direct racial discrimination to the Birmingham Employment Tribunal against the Respondent. That complaint was heard on 21st July and 27th November 1997. Thereafter, that application was dismissed.
  3. On 30th March 1998 he presented a further complaint alleging racial victimisation, unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. That complaint came on for hearing before a Tribunal sitting at Birmingham under the Chairmanship of Mr D Hewitt over 6 days with a further days deliberation by the Employment Tribunal in chambers. By a decision promulgated with extended reasons on 13th August 1999 the Tribunal upheld the complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal but dismissed the complaint of racial discrimination which they describe in their decision as the complaint of race discrimination (racial victimisation).
  4. At paragraph 11 of their reasons the Tribunal deal shortly with the complaint under the 1976 Act. We need not set out that paragraph for the purposes of this judgment. Mr Kibling who appeared for the Appellant below and appears before us today tells us that by the time the Tribunal came to determine this case, the Appellant had added to the claim of victimisation which appears on the face of the Originating Application a separate complaint of direct racial discrimination supported by some 14 particular instances.
  5. It is against the Tribunal's findings under the 1976 Act that this appeal is brought.
  6. Having considered the way in which the case is put by Mr Kibling today, slightly differently, to the way in which it is pleaded in the original grounds of appeal, we are satisfied that the appeal does raise arguable points of law which ought to proceed to a full appeal hearing. In particular, on the face of it the Tribunal at paragraph 11 of their reasons have arguably confused the ingredients of direct discrimination and victimisation, somehow combining the two in a way which the Appellant complaints means that Tribunal has not demonstrated the approach it has taken in law to the facts as found.
  7. We shall say no more about the merits of the appeal other than that the case will proceed to a full hearing. It should be listed for 3 hours, category B. There will be exchange of skeleton arguments not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full hearing, copies to be lodged at the same time with the Employment Appeal Tribunal.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/1215_99_1402.html