Appeal No. EAT/1286/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 26 March 2001

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MRS T A MARSLAND
MR P A L PARKER CBE

QUICKS GROUP PLC	APPELLANT

MR U A KHAN	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR N GRUNDY
(Of Counsel)
Eversheds
London Scottish House
24 Mount Street
Manchester
M2 3DB	

JUDGE PETER CLARK

1.	The Applicant, Mr Khan, A Kenyan Asian, was employed by the Respondent Quicks Group Plc as a mechanic technician from 4 June 1997 to 3 June 1998.  Following termination of his employment he presented an Originating Application to the Employment Tribunal complaining of unlawful racial discrimination.  In all there were 7 separate heads of complaint which were considered by an Employment Tribunal sitting at Manchester on 9 March 2000.

2.	Of those, all were dismissed save in relation to the Applicant’s supervisor, Brendon Craven in respect of whom the Tribunal found that the Applicant was exposed to acts of serious and continual racial abuse.

3.	Having found liability on the part of the Respondent employer to that extent in a decision promulgated on 17 April 2000 the Employment Tribunal reconvened for a remedies hearing on 11 September 2000 and awarded the Applicant compensation under the following heads:

	Injury to Feelings 				 £17,000
	Personal Injury (that is Psychiatric injury) 	 £20,000
	Aggravated Damages  			£5,000
and what is described as liquidated damages or damages for economic loss in the sum of £3,240 making a total award of £45,240.

4.	Against that remedies decision this Appeal is brought.  In support of the Appeal Mr Grundy argues first that there was a degree of double if not treble recovery in the Employment Tribunal’s approach.  He submits that it was wrong in principle to separate out an award for Injury to feelings from an award for Personal Injury and to compensate the Applicant separately for both.  In addition he raises the argument based on the decision of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in McConnel v Police Authority of Northern Ireland [1997] IRLR 629 that there should be no separate award in relation to Aggravated Damages.

5.	In addition, there is the question on Appeal as to whether looked at globally the total award for non economic loss is so wholly erroneous as to entitle this Employment Appeal Tribunal to interfere.

6.	Further, he submits that the award in relation to economic loss is contrary to principle in that the Applicant’s employment with the Respondent was terminated in June 1998 in circumstances unconnected with the racial discrimination as found by the Employment Tribunal and in circumstances where the medical evidence suggested that the Applicant was fit for work.  Nevertheless, the Employment Tribunal awarded him in effect 6 months loss of earnings from the date of termination of his employment.  Mr Grundy submits that that finding cannot stand on the evidence before the Employment Tribunal.

7.	Having considered those submissions we have concluded that all grounds raised in the notice of appeal are arguable and in those circumstances we shall permit the matter to proceed to a full hearing.  We shall direct that the case be listed for half a day – Category B.  There will be exchange of skeleton arguments between the parties not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing.  Copies of those skeleton arguments to be lodged with this Employment Appeal Tribunal at the same time.  There are no further directions, in particular this is not a case in which Chairman’s notes appear to be necessary.