[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Leverson v. Huggins & Anor [2002] UKEAT 1046_01_1902 (19 February 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1046_01_1902.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1046_01_1902, [2002] UKEAT 1046_1_1902

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR PAUL EPSTEIN (of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors Riverside Court Avenue de Clichy Merthyr Tydfil CF47 8LD


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE A WILKIE QC

1. This is a preliminary hearing of the appeal by Mr Leverson, the second Respondent below, against the unanimous Decision of the Employment Tribunal which found in favour of the Applicant, Ms Huggins, that she suffered unlawful discrimination pursuant to the Race Relations Act by Mr Leverson.
2. The grounds of appeal are set out fully in the Notice of Appeal and essentially, it amounts to this: the complainant alleged discrimination arising out of a whole series of incidents at the workplace, a number of them, most seriously, involving Mr Leverson directly.
3. It was a case where there was a stark conflict of evidence on each of the incidents relied on. The evidence called by the Applicant, essentially was her own, whereas in respect of each of the incidents, there was evidence not only from Mr Leverson, but evidence from some or all of the work colleagues who gave evidence at the Tribunal hearing.
4. It appears that the witnesses all effectively supported the accounts being given by Mr Leverson, but the Tribunal, in what is criticised as a blanket approach, rejected all of their evidence wherever it conflicted with that of the Applicant, and preferred her evidence throughout.
5. The complaints made are of a very serious nature and sufficient in number that it is said that the Tribunal owed a duty in its Reasons to identify with some degree of particularity why it was that it rejected the evidence of the second Respondent and his witnesses, beyond making vague comments, hinting that there might have been collusion.
6. We can understand the concern felt by Mr Leverson and his witnesses at such an apparent approach and we therefore have concluded that there is an arguable case which ought to be heard by a full hearing of the Employment Appeal Tribunal on an inter partes basis. That is not, of course, to say that this appeal will necessarily succeed, because at this stage it is sufficient for us to conclude that it is arguable.
7. In addition to the grounds of appeal presently relied on, it is requested by Mr Leverson that an additional ground be added namely that the Tribunal came to a perverse conclusion, or was simply inaccurately recording the arguments placed before it, when it stated in paragraph 26 of its Decision that there was no suggestion by the Respondent that a document placed before the Tribunal, purporting to be a diary of the events in question, was a recent fabrication or other than a contemporaneous record.
8. Mr Epstein has stated, on instructions that the point was put to the Tribunal and to the Applicant that this document was a recent fabrication as well as it being an untruthful document insofar as it recorded incidents which were disputed. We give permission for this additional ground to be added.
9. There was before the Employment Tribunal a range of written witness statements, which have helpfully been compiled in a supplemental trial bundle, and plainly that bundle will be before the EAT when it hears the matter in full.
10. In addition, however, Mr Epstein has persuaded us that it is necessary for the Chairman's Notes of Evidence to be produced on two limited issues. The first is the oral evidence of Mr Leverson, where he deals with meetings which he had with any of the witnesses whom he called in support of his events, after he had been suspended from duty in September 1999. The second is the oral evidence of Rosalind Donnelly, where she dealt with an incident recorded by her in a statement given to the Police internal enquiry which appears at the bottom of page 113 and the top of page 114 of the witness bundle.
11. This case is a category C case. We estimate that it will take a day and a half to hear, and should be listed with that time in mind We order the Skeleton Arguments and lists of authorities should be furnished to the Tribunal fourteen days in advance of the hearing date which will be fixed in the normal way.