Appeal No.	 EAT/999/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 19 January 2001

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE P COLLINS CBE
MR S M SPRINGER MBE
MR T C THOMAS CBE

MR B CORSAIR	APPELLANT

LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

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

JUDGE P COLLINS CBE:

1	This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal against the decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Liverpool whose extended reasons were promulgated on 29 June 2000.  They held that there had been no discrimination against the appellant on the ground of his disability and he appeals against that decision.

2	The appellant has reasonably serious hearing problems.  He was taken on by the Liverpool City Council as an accommodation support worker on 13 December 1999 and he immediately discovered that he had problems with the telephone.  Presumably a lot of his work was done on the telephone and, although an amplified telephone was available for a short time at any rate, neither he nor his immediate superior were aware of it.

3	There was then a change in the telephone systems which did not permit that amplified telephone to be used but eventually arrangements were made for him to have an adequate amplified telephone, although it took some time to arrange it.  The Council accepted that they were under a duty to make reasonable adjustments in accordance with section 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and contended that they had complied with that duty.

4	In addition there were three specific incidents which the appellant relied on as being examples of disability discrimination.  The tribunal rejected his claim on the facts in relation to two of those incidents.  In relation to one of them they held that some words had been passed, after a problem in communication, but they held that the employee’s manager would have behaved in exactly the same way to a person without a disability in relation to it and therefore, there was no disability discrimination.  In any event they felt that the incident was so trivial that the law took no account of it.

5	The appellant served a Notice of Appeal on 7 August and the point that he makes were essentially that the tribunal misdirected or failed to implement section 6 of the Act and secondly that the Council’s officials told lies to the tribunal and that he had evidence to show that that was the case.  

6	There is then an extremely lengthy manuscript rider to the Notice of Appeal which essentially consists of detailed assertions about the facts of the case and, on the face of it, there is no obvious arguable point of law which arises out of the tribunal’s decision, all the criticisms being criticisms of fact.

7	I ought to refer to the fact that the appellant is not here today to pursue his appeal.  Yesterday a fax was received from the tribunal at shortly after 3 o’clock in the afternoon and is as follows:

“Pursuant to our telephone conversation today circa 2 pm I formally, as advised, request an adjournment of my appeal listed tomorrow (19/1/01) at 10:30 am.
I request this because my 86 year old mother, whom I care for, has had her health take a sudden turn for the worse.
My mum suffers from osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, circulation problems, dizzy spells and confusion.  She is also very frail.
She woke this morning in great pain with her back, which is deformed by the osteoporosis.  This had not abated by [and then there is something which is illegible].  Worse, she is now confined to bed.  My dilemma is I can’t leave her in this condition.  I am her sole carer.  She will not have anyone else in while she is like this.  I am at a loss.” [and he asks for another chance]

8	There are a number of points to be made.  Firstly, as a matter of common sense it is unlikely that the appellant’s 86 year old mother, who suffers from health problems, is likely to have any dramatic improvement in the immediate future.  Secondly, the matter was placed before the Registrar yesterday who directed that the case remain in the list and I have a note from the Listing Office which says:

“I have been unable to make contact with the appellant to inform him of the Registrar’s decision.  I have tried to call him on his home number … until 5:15 pm but there has been no reply.  He has not called to find out the outcome of his application.”

I recite those facts in the contents of the appellant’s fax.  The tribunal is not particularly impressed by the failure of the appellant to attend to pursue his appeal.  

9	For the reasons I have given we take the view that the criticisms which were made are criticisms of fact and that there is no arguable point of law which arises from the tribunal’s decision and accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.