[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Noor v. Telewest Communications (South East) Ltd [2000] UKEAT 318_00_2211 (22 November 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/318_00_2211.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 318__2211, [2000] UKEAT 318_00_2211

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR G MORTON (Of Counsel) Appearing under ELAAS


 


JUDGE LEVY QC

1. The Appellant in these proceedings sought relief against the Respondent Telewest Communications (South East) Ltd before an Employment Tribunal claiming unlawful sex discrimination. There was a hearing before the Tribunal when both sides were represented by Counsel. The Tribunal sitting at London (South) on 17 December recorded that the Applicant was subjected to unlawful sex discrimination by the Respondent when an employee suggested that the reason why the Applicant was unhappy with the Company car provided to her by the Respondent was because of her time of the month. The Tribunal further ordered that compensation in the sum of £30,617.55 should be paid to the Appellant.
2. It is apparent from reading the papers that the decision was sent to the parties on 26 January 2000 there having been a two stage hearing, the compensation being dealt with subsequent to the decision as to sex discrimination. At paragraph 7 of the Extended Reasons, remedy is considered. Conclusions commence at paragraph 27.
3. In paragraph 38 of the conclusions section of the Extended Reasons, the Tribunal's calculations for remedy are set out:

"The calculations on financial losses are as follows:

Period April 1998 to March 1999 the Applicant would have earned net pay of £9,600

She actually received £6,725.13, leaving the balance owing of £2,875."

4. Among the documents before the Tribunal is one produced at this hearing which we were told was p74 of the trial bundle which is a document relating to the Appellant's earnings, possibly relating to May, June and July 1998 showing the gross amount to be paid in that quarter to be £6,398.16.
5. In her IT1 the Appellant had filled in at Box 8 her basic average take home pay as being £660 per month and leaving blank the other bonuses/benefits box beneath it. In their IT3 the Respondents had not quarrelled with this figure.
6. In her Notice of Appeal the Appellant said this:

"a) At the Hearing on the 17^th December 1999, evidence was adduced on behalf of the Respondent by Mr Paul Borseberry as to the earnings of the Applicant whilst an employee of the Respondent. This was relevant from the point of view of considering the Applicant's Loss of Earnings. Mr Borseberry's evidence on this subject was accepted by the Tribunal.

b) It has subsequently come to light that evidence is available which questions the veracity of the evidence adduced by Mr Borseberry."

7. At the hearing of this Appeal, the Appellant has been represented by Mr Morton, who is not the Counsel who represented her below. He has produced, on instructions, a document which was at p74 of the trial bundle below but no evidence whatsoever has been produced by the Appellant which has come to light since the hearing before the Employment Tribunal. The Employment Tribunal clearly had the document produced and they made a thorough investigation of the facts and came to the conclusion on the merits which they did.
8. In the circumstances, we cannot see that there is any new evidence, which could be properly adduced on appeal and see no point of law which arises on the appeal stage. This being a Preliminary Hearing of the Appeal, we accordingly dismiss it at this stage.