[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Galloway v. Birmingham City Council & Ors [2001] UKEAT 504_01_1710 (17 October 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/504_01_1710.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 504_01_1710, [2001] UKEAT 504_1_1710

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR R C GALLOWAY (The Appellant in person)


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE J R REID QC

1. In this appeal, EAT/0504/01, Mr Galloway is asking for the right to proceed against a Mr Haynes who was originally the third Respondent to this application which was dealt with following a four day hearing culminating at the end of last year by an Employment Tribunal held at Birmingham. The first of the decisions made by that Tribunal was that Mr Haynes would be dismissed as a Respondent from the proceedings. The basis of the decision essentially was that any claim against Mr Haynes was well out of time.
2. The point that Mr Galloway seeks to raise on this appeal is that after the dismissal of Mr Haynes from the proceedings, Mr Eastman, another Respondent, gave evidence in which he indicated that Mr Haynes had told certain lies and that Mr Haynes had admitted to him that he had been tricked into giving another employee his post, whereas Mr Haynes had previously denied that. The materiality of that is that Mr Galloway alleges that discrimination against him took, in part, the form of his having to do the work of two other employees, one of whom was the one about whom Mr Haynes is said to have lied, who were of different ethnic origin, and who were not made to do their job properly, insofar as they were capable of doing it, which Mr Galloway doubts, because Mr Haynes was frightened of being the subject of race discrimination complaints by those two employees. That is put in a very potted form a part of Mr Galloway's multifarious complaints.
3. The difficulty that we have with this is, first of all, that Mr Galloway did not in fact raise this as a matter of complaint when he sought a review of the decision of the Employment Tribunal. Secondly, that the matter could not itself have been an act of discrimination. Thirdly, that we are unable to see that the additional evidence made available by the other employee, Mr Eastman, which might have assisted Mr Galloway, is of itself something which makes it just and equitable to extend the time limit for Mr Galloway to bring proceedings against Mr Haynes.
4. In our judgment, even had Mr Eastman's evidence been available to the Tribunal at the time when they were asked to decide about Mr Haynes' dismissal or continuance as a Respondent, that additional evidence would have made no difference whatsoever and the conclusion at which the Tribunal arrived would inevitably have been precisely the same. There is no error of law in the decision that the Tribunal made at the time on the material before them. There is nothing in the proposed additional evidence which would make it appropriate for this matter to be remitted back to the Tribunal for them to reconsider their decision in the light of the additional evidence.
5. It follows that, in our view, unlike the position in Mr Galloway's other appeal arising out of the same decision, there is no basis on which this matter should go to a Full Hearing. Therefore, this appeal will be dismissed at this stage.