Appeal No.	 EAT/965/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 21 November 2001

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D PUGSLEY
MR P A L PARKER CBE
MR S M SPRINGER MBE

MR L CHIGBUNDU	APPELLANT

CENTRAL TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE
 & MR P MONNELLY	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING 

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	The Appellant in person	

JUDGE D PUGSLEY

1	This is a case in which the Appellant, Mr Chigbundu was dismissed in March 1999.  With commendable swiftness his case came before the Employment Tribunal in Bristol in July 1999 and they dismissed his allegations that he was the victim of racial discrimination.  

2	The case was heard on 12, 13 and 14 July and its Decision was promulgated on 20 July.  The matter then came before us as a Tribunal on grounds of appeal on 8 December 1999.  The grounds of appeal which were then set out were to the effect that the Tribunal had erred in law in that 

“a       the Tribunal dismissed the claim on the basis of no case to answer.  The case was not an exceptionally hopeless or frivolous case.  The tribunal were therefore not entitled to dismiss it before hearing the Respondents evidence and cross examination of the Respondents witnesses.  
            The Tribunal wrongly concluded that there was no evidence before the tribunal requiring explanation or response from the employer that they heard evidence that
(i)   a child in the appellant’s class made a racist comment against him and that the action against that child was less severe than in other cases of misbehaviour.”
It then went on to give further details and it then dealt with the fact that 
“(ii)  the Respondents had refused to consider the appellant’s grievance”
and there was reference that:
“(iii)   Consideration was not given to the issue of the threats made by the Respondents”

about his future career, and also there was an allegation that the Chairman had stopped him producing a character reference.  Well that matter came before us.  The Applicant, Mr Chigbundu, did not appear; it was made clear to him that his appeal remained in the list; he was sent a copy of the Order and a transcript of the Judgment was sent. 

3	In that case we, as a Tribunal, pointed to those authorities as:

“deprecated allowing a submission of no case to answer in employment law cases, especially in discrimination cases where the burden of proof is on the Appellant.”

However, we noted that the Tribunal had said that they were aware that:
“We are aware that only in the most clear cut and exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal should decide such a case with hearing both sides.  Bearing this in mind and having considered every aspect to the Appellant’s evidence in most minute detail we have come to the conclusion that the Applicant has failed to produce any evidence requiring explanation or response by the employer in these very exceptional circumstances we uphold the submission”

We therefore dismissed the appeal.  

4	We have now been asked to review that Decision on the basis that the interests of justice require such a review.  There has been a considerable difficulty in finding the time when the Appellant would attend, or could attend, but he is here.  The position, very simply, is this: that Mr Chigbundu has put before us a document which he says was before the Tribunal.  That document sets out in some specific detail how he had been the subject of racial abuse by pupils and that he believed that he was not getting the support that he felt he was entitled to from his employers, and there would have been evidence that arguably should have been referred to in the original Tribunal hearing decision.  

5	It is no part of the Tribunal Decision to set out at length, copious directions of law or findings of fact, but in the light of what we now know, we are told by Mr Chigbundu, was before the Tribunal, we consider in broad terms it is arguable a Tribunal should set out with enough detail and particularity so a party knows why they have won or why they have lost.  

6	Notwithstanding the delay in the light of the matters now put before us in the exercise of our discretion, we consider we should review our Decision.  We have come to the view that this matter should be allowed to proceed to a full hearing on the basis of the grounds of appeal, namely that the Tribunal dismissed the case without hearing evidence, and wrongly concluded there was no evidence before the Tribunal requiring explanation or response from the employer. We ask that the Appellant produce a bundle of all the documents that he said was before the Tribunal, and we ask that the Chairman’s notes be obtained as to such instances of racial ill-treatment and/or disparate treatment about which the Appellant gave evidence.  

7	We consider this is a Category C case, half a day.  We make the usual Order as to Skeleton Arguments, but we emphasise this to Mr Chigbundu.  He now has been working abroad, we do not know how long or on what terms.  Whilst we assume that all Tribunals would seek to assist, at the end of the day, there are two sides to every question.  We are well aware, because we have had correspondence from solicitors appearing for the Respondents, that this case will cause problems to the Respondent school.  They may have difficulties because of staff changes and whilst his position may be taken into account, it cannot be the sole criteria.  We also wish to say this: during the course of addressing us, Mr Chigbundu has given us some information about the school, about various incidents it is said to have occurred.  Our view, quite simply, is this: that those matters have no relevance to the issue before us today.  We have not considered them to be relevant to the determination of whether there is an identifiable error of law.  As to their relevance in any future hearing, that is not a matter for us to discuss, but we have not taken those into account in reaching our decision.  We have done it purely on the basis that we have now been told matters that are before us, but we must emphasise, it is no good coming to this Tribunal; getting the relief that is sought and then not appearing at future times.  If the Appellant wants to pursue this case, he is going to have to put it as a high priority.  The Appellant cannot expect indulgence always to be exercised.  There are two sides to every question, and the interests of the school, who no doubt vigorously oppose this, has to be considered as well.  

8	So the Order we make is that the matter may go forward, the usual Order as to Skeleton Arguments will go forward on the grounds of appeal as alleged.  The Appellant would be well advised to consider taking some advice, either from the Citizens Advice Bureau, or from the legal profession.