[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Miebaka v. Governers of The Salesian College & Anor [2000] UKEAT 546_00_1411 (14 November 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/546_00_1411.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 546_00_1411, [2000] UKEAT 546__1411

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

APPEARANCE

 

For the Appellant	MISS PHILLIPA DANIELS (of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Collinson & Co Solicitors 1-3 Hildreth Street Balham London SW12 9RQ


 
JUDGE D M LEVY QC
1. We have before us today the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mr Ben Miebaka from a decision made by an Employment Tribunal. The Extended Reasons do not give the Appellant's forenames or when the Tribunal was held. Evidence suggests that it may have been Croydon. These omissions are regrettable. We understand it was held at London South.
2. The hearing below took place on 3 November, 22 December 1999 and 18 February of this year. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that the Appellant's claim for racial discrimination failed. The majority of the Tribunal held that the Appellant was not dismissed; the minority concluded that the Appellant was constructively dismissed and that this dismissal was unfair. This appeal is an ex-parte hearing; when the case was first called on, Counsel, instructed by solicitors, addressed us and, when asked what the point of the appeal was, candidly admitted that there were no grounds on which the appeal could properly be put forward.
3. We gave an adjournment so that the matter could further be considered by her with her client. When the hearing resumed, we gave permission for the Counsel and solicitors to be taken off the record, and the Applicant has addressed us himself. What he has asked is that there should be an adjournment for him to instruct fresh solicitors and Counsel, and so that the case could be looked at afresh, including getting the Chairman's Notes.
4. The decision was made as long ago as 14 March of this year, the Notice of Appeal is dated 27 April 2000. No grounds for adjournment other than further seeking grounds of appeal have been put forward by the Appellant. Having regard to the extended reasons given by the Tribunal, and the time which has passed for grounds of appeal to have been lodged and served, it would not be proper to grant a further adjournment.
5. The Appeal Notice as settled reads:-

1) The Tribunal failed to make a comparison between a white person and a black person in a claim by the Appellant of racial discrimination.

2) It failed to accept as constructive dismissal, hence unfair dismissal by the Appellant even though he was made to resign against his wish.

3) The Tribunal failed to find unfair dismissal even though it accepted that the Respondent did not follow disciplinary procedure"

6. The background facts as set out in the decision of the Tribunal, promulgated to the parties on 14 March 2000, are that there was a complaint, by a pupil at the school, run by the Respondents, of behaviour by the Appellant. There was a great deal of investigation of that complaint. In the course of the investigations, a Mr Ryan, the LEA's Senior Personnel Officer, became involved. What was at the centre of the hearing before the Tribunal as we understand the extended reasons, was whether the resignation proffered by the Appellant, while a decision was being considered by the Disciplinary Tribunal, was improperly given, having regard to the part taken by Mr Ryan. At page 42 of the decision, the majority of the Tribunal stated that they placed great weight on the evidence of Mr Ryan and, in effect, where his evidence was different to that of the Appellant, they preferred his evidence; the majority then reached the decision that Mr Ryan's assistance in the case was in no way improper, and that it was the Appellant's own decision to resign. It is quite clear from reading the extended reasons in detail that the grounds set out in the Notice of Appeal do not raise any point of law on which the Appellant can succeed.
7. In the circumstances we cannot consider that there is any point to go forward to a full hearing and we will therefore dismiss the appeal at this stage. It is quite clear from reading the decision in depth that there was not discrimination by the Respondents of the Appellant as a black person.