[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Sahota v. Wolverhampton City Council [2003] UKEAT 0414_03_1508 (15 August 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2003/0414_03_1508.html Cite as: [2003] UKEAT 414_3_1508, [2003] UKEAT 0414_03_1508

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR TOM BROWN (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE ANSELL

1. In this case, Mr Sahota seeks leave to appeal a decision of Employment Tribunal who declined to review their original decision. The original decision was given on 3 February at Birmingham and dismissed claims under the Race Relations Act and the Disability Discrimination Act.
2. The claims arose from an application made in February 2002, by Mr Sahota, for the post of Audit Manager, and subsequently being informed by letter of 5 April that he had not been short listed. He claimed that that decision was made on the grounds of race or alternatively disability. Disability was conceded that he was partly sighted and he has asthma. There was considerable evidence given before the Tribunal in relation to the selection criteria and the particular criteria complained of in relation to membership of two professional bodies, the CCAB, which is the Consultancy Committee of Accountancy Bodies, and/or the IIA, which is the Institute of Internal Auditors. Mr Sahota did not possess that experience. He claimed that he had membership of another body which was of roughly equivalent status, but on the evidence before the Tribunal, they rejected that contention.
3. The Tribunal found that the explanation given by the Respondents, which was the decision not to employ, was taken because he did not have either of the professional qualifications which were stipulated as a requirement for the post to be entirely satisfactory and convincing, and they therefore dismissed the suggestion that there was any other reason for the decision. Thus they rejected the racial discrimination claims and the disability claim. There was not a suggestion that the criteria were, by themselves, discriminatory by their nature.
4. The Tribunal also decided to impose a costs order of £998.75 being the amount of Counsel's fees. Mr Sahota appealed that decision but he was 3 days late in filing a Notice of Appeal at this Court and the Registrar by an order dated 12 June, declined to extend time.
5. Subsequently there was a review of the Tribunal's decision when Mr Sahota raised additional matters. First of all he suggested that the role of Audit Manager was, in fact, being performed by people who did not hold the qualification. That matter was examined by the Tribunal and they rejected a review on that basis. They then considered the issues which he advances before us today, which is that it was discriminatory to impose the particular qualifications that I have mentioned in respect of the two professional bodies. Again, they rejected that allegation and, finally, they rejected the suggestion that Mr Sahota had in effect complied with those qualifications, albeit through a different qualification.
6. Once again, these matters were fully explored by the Tribunal, both in their original decision and in the review decision and again we can see absolutely no grounds to interfere with the approach they took, which appears to be a correct analysis both of the facts and of the Law. The issue of costs is very much a matter of discretion for the Tribunal, provided they exercise it within the areas of discretion laid down by the Tribunal rules, and again, they went into that in their original decision. The case was put on the basis of "no reasonable prospect of success" and that the Applicant had acted unreasonably and they so found. Therefore, they had a discretion to award costs and made the order that they did. Again, we can see no reason to interfere with that decision and we would refuse leave for this matter to proceed to full hearing.