[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Rowson v. Singer (UK) Ltd [2001] UKEAT 499_01_0510 (5 October 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/499_01_0510.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 499_1_510, [2001] UKEAT 499_01_0510

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE J R REID QC

1. This in a Preliminary Hearing Ex Parte in an application by Mr Rowson against his former employers Singer (UK) Limited who appear at present to be in receivership. We have decided that at this stage we have to adjourn this Preliminary Hearing because the state of the papers makes it impossible for us to see what the real issues on the appeal are intended to be.
2. It appears that at some stage there was an amendment to the Originating Application which Mr Rowson made on 1 February 2000 to the Employment Tribunals at Liverpool. In that amended form of application he made a claim for direct sex discrimination arising out of the difference in terms of settlement between those he achieved and those another former employee of Singers, a Mrs McDonald, achieved in unfair dismissal proceedings which were settled back in May or June of 1991.
3. At the moment we do not have that amended Originating Application. We do not know when the amendment was sought. We do not know the terms in which it was sought, nor indeed do we know how it came about, as it appears to have been the case that the sex discrimination claim got added to his other claim by way of amendment. It looks as if there may originally have been two separate sets of proceedings but that is far from clear.
4. In all the circumstances all we can do at this stage is adjourn the Preliminary Hearing so that the amended Originating Application can be obtained and added to the file together with such surrounding documentation as there may be. When that has been done, the matter will have to be re-listed for a further Preliminary Hearing Ex Parte. Mr Rowson should not take this adjournment as being any indication, one way or the other, as to the likely outcome of the Preliminary Ex Parte Hearing when the Employment Appeal Tribunal has had an opportunity of looking at all the papers that are necessary for the purpose of considering the case.