Appeal No. EAT/0826/02 ILB

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 15 November 2002

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J ALTMAN
MR P R A JACQUES CBE
MR D LEWIS

MRS ROLLINS ELLIOT	APPELLANT

(1) MRS JASBEER ROOPROY	RESPONDENTS
(2) MANOR HOUSE HOSPITALS LTD

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR ROBERT ELLIOT
(Representative)	

HIS HONOUR JUDGE J ALTMAN

1	This appeal comes before us today by way of Preliminary Hearing.  We have had an opportunity to look at the papers and we have decided that, exceptionally, we are going to adjourn the Preliminary Hearing for a number of reasons.  There are aspects that do concern us about what appears from these papers.

2	The original liability issue was dealt with before this Employment Appeal Tribunal in a judgment which reversed the Employment Tribunal and made a finding of discrimination on 18 June 2001.  Without going into much of any detail we were a little bit concerned about the extent to which, if at all at this late stage, a view should be taken as to that judgment in the light, for instance, of the case of the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan.

3	The next thing that causes us some concern is that when this matter then went back, as a result of that judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, to the Employment Tribunal to deal with remedy, on 26 April, the Respondents did not attend.  The second Respondent (the Hospital) was then out of business and today we have been told by the first Respondent that she had received no notice of the hearing.  Furthermore, we have been told that there were two other applications before the Employment Tribunal, the first of which was taken into account at that remedies hearing, but possibly not in as full a way as was appropriate, and that, in any event, that there was a further hearing which seems to have been adjourned indefinitely.  

4	Finally, we note that the Employment Tribunal, in awarding compensation, expressed itself as having to make an order that was joint and several, but suggesting a division as between the first and second Respondents.  Of course, now that the second Respondent is in liquidation, the perception of the Employment Appeal Tribunal at the earlier hearing about the modesty of compensation has been falsified as a result of the joint and several order.  We just wonder if there is not an argument that in law, in race discrimination cases, a Tribunal has an obligation to consider whether to make separate orders or not and whether, in this case, that was in fact done.

5	It does seem to us, having identified those matters, there may well be other issues to consider but we have tried, we hope helpfully, to identify some of the central matters for consideration.  What procedural steps to deal with them the Appellant can take we do not know but we wish to give the Appellant an opportunity to approach the Free Representation Unit or some other agency to obtain some legal representation, possibly to clarify these matters.  

6	Because there is a great deal of money at stake for the Appellant, who is a nurse in employment in the Private Health Sector, it seems to us that we should adjourn this case to be re-listed at the first available date after 28 days for Preliminary Hearing and that is the Order that we make.  We also direct that a copy of this judgment be prepared and sent to the parties and to the Regional Chairman at London (Central).