[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Murali v British Medical Association & Ors [2002] UKEAT 0850_02_1912 (19 December 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/0850_02_1912.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 0850_02_1912, [2002] UKEAT 850_2_1912

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR S MURALI (The Appellant in person)


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE J MCMULLEN QC

1. This is an appeal by one of 3 Applicants before an Employment Tribunal in Manchester on 16 July and 1 August 2001, Chairman Mr J R Beaumont. The decision was promulgated with Extended Reasons on 31 May 2002. The Applicant was engaged in the health service and raises claims in other proceedings about the way in which a grading exercise took place in 1997. He put that in the hands of his trade union, the current Respondent, at the time.
2. However, on 12 March 2001 the Applicant became aware that the BMA had a policy of refusing to support its members in raising claims such as the Applicant had. In related proceedings, Chaudhary v BMA, heard over 15 days in 2001 before Miss A F W Woolley and members, promulgated with Extended Reasons in 47 pages on 24 September 2001, the Applicant's claim in that case was upheld in that the BMA was found to have discriminated against Mr Chaudhary:

"..by applying the requirement or condition that in order to be supported in claims of race discrimination a member had not to be alleging race discrimination by a Royal College, a member of the Specialty Advisory Committee of a Royal College, a Postgraduate Dean or the Specialist Training Authority and a considerably smaller number of Asian members could comply with that requirement than others and the applicant could not comply."

It further decided that the BMA discriminated against Mr Chaudhary:

".. by refusing to reconsider whether his tribunal cases were worthy of support by them by reason of the fact that the applicant had alleged that the respondents had discriminated against him on racial grounds."

Mr Chaudhary's proceedings are part of a sequence of proceedings in a number of different fora, including, Mr Murali tells us, the Court of Appeal.

3. The issue before the Employment Tribunal in his case was whether or not he had made his claim in time and, if not, whether it was just and equitable to extend time. The Tribunal decided against him on both.
4. We consider that the grounds of the Notice of Appeal are reasonably arguable and we will send this matter to a Full Hearing to consider whether the date of the cause of action is the date of crystallisation of knowledge of the Applicant that he had a claim against the BMA based upon its policy of not supporting persons making claims such as his.
5. As part of his grounds of appeal the Applicant contends there has been an inordinate delay without justification or explanation in the promulgation of the decision to him. The grounds of appeal make clear that he did make enquiries with the Tribunal to find out when the decision was to be forthcoming and it was not until he received a response on 26 June 2002 that he was sent the promulgated reasons dated 31 May 2002.
6. We have had no explanation for that. As a matter of substance, we have reflected with the Applicant about what powers a Full Hearing would have to deal with it. We have ourselves taken the step of expediting the Full Hearing, which may be some solace to the Applicant in what appears to us to be a well founded complaint about the administration of justice. We say that, however, not knowing why there was such a delay.
7. At a Full Hearing, if there were no explanation, the power of the Employment Appeal Tribunal would be very limited. It may be that the Applicant would have a claim under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 about the delay in promulgating his decision, but that would not arise before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Nor is there any remedy which the Employment Appeal Tribunal could give, it seems to us, in respect of the delay of which he complains. Nevertheless, Mr Murali will consider how he wishes to present that ground of appeal before the Full Hearing and we will leave that open.
8. The directions require a Notice of Appeal to be served, the Respondents will lodge and serve a Respondents' answer, there should be exchange of Skeleton Arguments 14 days after the Respondent's answer is sent. Category C, expedited, estimate 2 hours.