[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Ramlugun v. West London Mental Health NHS Trust [2002] UKEAT 1451_01_2207 (22 July 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1451_01_2207.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1451_01_2207, [2002] UKEAT 1451_1_2207

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR RAMLUGUN (the Appellant in Person)


 


JUDGE REID QC

1. This is the Preliminary Hearing of an appeal by Mr Ramlugun against a refusal by the Chairman of the Employment Tribunal at London (Central) on 30 October 2001 to review a decision of a Tribunal which was given on 5 October following a hearing which was spread over 4 days.
2. By the decision that Tribunal had dismissed two applications by Mr Ramlugun. The first of them was that he had been unfairly passed over for promotion on the grounds of race and so suffered discrimination, contrary to the Race Relation Act 1976. The second of them was racial discrimination by reason of victimisation, following on from what had happened after the presentation of his initial complaint.
3. Mr Ramlugun was anxious to appeal the substantive decision. Unhappily his Notice of Appeal was out of time and when he sought leave to appeal out of time that application was refused by the Registrar.
4. His appeal against the refusal of his application for a review was however in time and Mr Ramlugun makes no bones about the fact that what he is trying to do by his present appeal is to find a way by which he can attack the substantive decision of the Employment Tribunal.
5. The problem which he has, which he very frankly acknowledged in his helpful and engaging submissions, was that the original decision was essentially one on the facts and that the attempt to obtain a review was on the basis of a challenge to the findings of fact. As the Tribunal Chairman rightly pointed out, in refusing the application to review, a challenge to findings of fact is not a ground for review.
6. Regrettably from Mr Ramlugun's point of view, we are wholly unpersuaded that there could be said to be any error of law by the Chairman in refusing to review the decision of 5 October and, in those circumstances, there is no basis on which we could allow this appeal against the refusal of the application for a review to proceed for full hearing and this appeal should therefore be dismissed at this stage.