[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Singh v. Esprit People & Ors [2003] UKEAT 0278_03_1206 (12 June 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2003/0278_03_1206.html Cite as: [2003] UKEAT 0278_03_1206, [2003] UKEAT 278_3_1206

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR ADAM SOLOMON (of Counsel) Messrs Sermansky & Partners Solicitors 10 Butts Court Leeds LS1 5JS


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE J MCMULLEN QC

1. In this case we have heard Mr Solomon and agree that he has reasonably arguable points in relation to the Notice of Appeal. The elements which he draws from the Notice seem to us to be co-mingled and not susceptible to easy disentanglement and so we will allow the points to go forward following the Court of Appeal's recent judgment in The Times Law Reports in Vincent with the exception of paragraphs 3 and 7.
2. As to paragraph 3, the debate with Mr Solomon indicated a degree of misunderstanding; we am sure, on our part, about his drafting and he has kindly agreed to re-amend paragraph 3.
3. As to paragraph 7, this is a discrete point and can be taken as follows: it is contended the Applicant made an allegation in his Originating Application that white employees were supplied by the Respondent to Allsops, in preference to the Applicant's request for a job for his brother who is black. That is met by a defence in the Notice of Appearance. It ought, therefore, to have been the subject of a finding. Mr Solomon accepts that this is, at most, a background fact rather than a primary issue. He pointed out that the Tribunal said at paragraph 20 that counsel then representing the Applicant had helpfully set out the specific acts of discrimination upon which findings were required. They are enumerated in the reasons of the Tribunal. It is not open, in those circumstances, for subsequent counsel, except in the most exceptional circumstances, to contend that those issues did not represent the issues upon which the Tribunal was required to make findings. On that discrete ground, ground 7, there is no reasonably arguable prospect of success and it is dismissed.