[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Angel v. New Possibilities NHS Trust [2000] UKEAT 1220_00_1910 (19 October 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/1220_00_1910.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 1220_00_1910, [2000] UKEAT 1220__1910

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR L ASHDOWN (Representative)


 


JUDGE REID QC: We have before us today an ex parte preliminary hearing in the matter of Angel v New Possibilities NHS Trust in which Mrs Angel seeks to appeal from the decision of an Employment Tribunal at Bury St Edmunds dismissing her application for want of jurisdiction.

1. Mrs Angel asserts that the tribunal had jurisdiction under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, notwithstanding that the alleged discrimination of which she complains, took place a considerable time after the termination of her employment.
2. The basis of the decision by the tribunal was that under the terms of that Act the complaint could not relate to discrimination after employment but could only relate to discrimination during employment. That decision turned on the wording of section 4(2) of the 1995 Act. The wording of that Act was contrasted by the tribunal with words used in other Acts, sex discrimination and race discrimination.
3. We were told that there is a further case raising essentially the same point which is being pursued under the auspices of the Disability Rights Commission. The DRC suggested that we be asked to stay this appeal pending the outcome of that other appeal, Kirker v British Sugar Plc.
4. We think it is clear that there is a real point which requires to be properly argued. At this stage it is not for us to say anything about the merits one way or the other of the point, still less about what are or are not the merits of the claim, even assuming that there is jurisdiction.
5. We think that the point should be argued but we do not, on the other hand, think it desirable simply to stay this appeal until after the other matter has been determined. What we propose to direct is that the matter go for a full hearing but that there be an inter partes directions hearing at a date to be fixed by the tribunal so that consideration can be given as to how best to bring this appeal into line with the existing appeal in Kirker and, indeed, any other cases raising the same point that there may be. It may be that this is a case where it would be appropriate to have this case heard immediately after the other. It may be that there are good reasons why that should not be the case, but it is not something which we can investigate today. We will direct that it should go for a full hearing and we add that there should be a directions hearing.
6. I reiterate what I said in the course of argument that these sort of points are perhaps not the best of matters to be dealt with by lay representation. Though I have no doubt that Mrs Angel has every reason to be grateful to Mr Ashdown for his assistance, it may very well be that she would be better served by seeking some form of professional advice, whether it be from the Free Representation Unit, a Citizens Advice Bureau, the Bar Pro Bono Unit or from some other source, I would not care to hazard a guess, but there are a wide variety of organisations around which would be likely to be able to offer some assistance.
7. I should add that there was an application to amend the grounds of appeal but that was not persisted in, though it may well be that some other possibly reformulated application will be made at a later date.