Appeal No.	EAT/1362/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 10 July 2002

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR J C SHRIGLEY
MR A D TUFFIN CBE

MISS A R HERRING	APPELLANT

SANDLOT INC	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MISS MONAGHON
(of Counsel)
Appearing under the
Employment Law Appeal
Advice Scheme	

JUDGE D M LEVY QC:

1	This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Miss Andrea Rebecca Herring (“the Appellant”) from a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting in Reading on 11 September 2001.

2	The decision on a preliminary issue was that the Appellant was not a disabled person within the ambit of Section 1 and Schedule 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and her application for relief was dismissed.  The decision was promulgated on 1 October 2001.  A Notice of Appeal was lodged on 8 November 2001.  

3	Miss Monaghon appears on the ELAAS Scheme for the Appellant today.  She has adduced a Skeleton Argument which has satisfied us that the points made in it are arguable and the point at issue (putting it broadly) is whether somebody, who is able to drive, falls within the terms of the DDA.  She has persuaded us that there is an arguable issue, though we have asked her to inform her client that that does not mean to say that the argument will succeed in due course.  She has also drafted an amended Notice of Appeal which could, on one reading, be said to expand or give particulars of the only ground which was there before.  It may be thought that the extra ground falls within that but it seems desirable that the Respondent’s Notice should answer the amended Notice of Appeal, but whether the amended notice should be admitted will have to be decided by the Tribunal hearing the full appeal in due course.  Category C, estimated time half a day.