[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Lynn v. Rokeby School Governors & Anor [2000] EAT 86_99_2305 (23 May 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/86_99_2305.html Cite as: [2000] EAT 86_99_2305

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	IN PERSON
For the Respondents	MR M EGAN (of Counsel) Instructed By: Mr G Edila The London Borough of Newham/Rokeby School Head of Legal Services East Ham Town Hall Barking Road London E6 2RP


 


MR JUSTICE NELSON: This is an appeal by the Appellant, Dr John Lynn, against a decision of the Employment Tribunal given on 11 November 1998.

1. The matter came before Mr Justice Morison, the then President, on 23 April 1999, when numerous matters were sought for full hearing by Dr Lynn. Leave was in fact given only in respect of one of the grounds that he sought and the point in respect of which leave was given was whether the access to the Pension Scheme, depending, as it did, on full-time or part-time employment, was itself unlawfully discriminatory. Mr Justice Morison found, without giving any indication as to the outcome of that argument, that that point seemed to be arguable. That point is therefore before this Tribunal today.
2. The Respondent however has made an application for an adjournment on the basis that exchange of skeleton arguments did not take place until this morning and a document attached to Dr Lynn's skeleton, but not enclosed within the EAT bundle, contains material which it is necessary for him to take instructions upon. That is Appendix C1 and C2, a letter of 4 October 1996 from Dr Lynn to his then employers.
3. Dr Lynn does not oppose the adjournment nor suggest that it is unnecessary for the Respondent to have one in order to be able to deal with that document. Accordingly an adjournment is requested and in the circumstances this Tribunal considers it appropriate to grant that request.
4. There is however another reason why it is necessary for the matter to be adjourned. The point, expressed as it was by Mr Justice Morison, namely whether access to the Pension Scheme, depending on full-time or part-time employment is in itself unlawfully discriminatory, is a point of some potential importance and the Respondent had already sought the views of the Secretary of State for Education as to whether he should be joined as a Respondent to this appeal in order to deal with this particular point.
5. The Respondent has only recently received a letter in reply from the Department for Education and Employment indicating that it is not disputed that the Secretary of State should be joined as Respondent. It is also right to say that Dr Lynn himself has made an application in writing for the Pension Trustees to be joined as a party.
6. In these circumstances this is another additional ground for adjourning the matter and we order that consideration be given by the Secretary of State as to whether or not he ought to be joined as a party to this appeal, after consultation with the Respondent, and after hearing any points that Dr Lynn might seek to raise in correspondence with them.
7. In order that the matter should not be subject to further delay and that the necessary procedural steps can be properly considered, we also order that there be a Directions Hearing on this matter within 28 days. At that Directions Hearing the question of whether the Chairman's Note should be obtained can be dealt with, together with any directions that are thought to be necessary, as to the joining of the Secretary of State as a Respondent to this appeal. It may be, of course, that a decision is made not to join the Secretary of State but simply for the input that he might have to be dealt with through the Respondent. That is a matter that can be the subject of discussions and decision before the matter comes back for directions. Any other directions will therefore be left until that date.
8. We have considered whether or not this should be viewed as a Category A matter. Both parties would be content to accept that it is treated as such and we are of the view that it ought to be. Accordingly, we will now categorise this as Category A.