 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Adoko v The Law Society [1995] UKEAT 694_95_0412 (4 December 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/694_95_0412.html Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 694_95_412, [1995] UKEAT 694_95_0412 |
||
[New search] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)
MR D J JENKINS MBE
MISS A MACKIE OBE
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is the Preliminary Hearing of an appeal by Dr A Adoko against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal. The position as to representation is that Dr Adoko has not attended today. He has submitted a large bundle of documents with a covering letter of 26 November 1995. In the covering letter he says that, in his view, these documents, together with the seventeen points made in his Skeleton Argument, will enable this Appeal Tribunal to determine, at this preliminary stage, that his appeal raises a sufficiently arguable case in law, to give jurisdiction to the Appeal Tribunal to entertain it.
This appeal is against the order of the Industrial Tribunal made after a hearing of the Industrial Tribunal held at London (South) on 31 October 1994, and 1 & 2 November 1994. The extended reasons for the Tribunal's decision were notified to the parties on 10 February 1995. The Tribunal unanimously decided, for reasons explained in the decision document that The Law Society of England & Wales, the Respondents to the application, had unlawfully discriminated against him contrary to the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976, read with Section 1(1)(b) of that Act. They went on to say that such unlawful discrimination was unintentional and therefore no compensation was payable. Finally, they said that, on the application of Dr Adoko, his claims relating to the unlawful discrimination and victimisation contrary to Section 12(1) read with Section 1(1)(a) and/or Section 2 of the Race Relations Act were dismissed.
The Tribunal expressed the view that Dr Adoko had acted unreasonably in the conduct of the case, and awarded costs against him in respect of any extra work which the Respondent was obliged to do, in dealing with the proposed amendment to his Originating Application, with regard to indirect discrimination in respect of the pass mark. The details of the Tribunal's decision are set out in the extended reasons. The Tribunal said in relation to the conduct of the hearing at paragraph 5 that they accepted:
"... the Applicant's application to withdraw his direct discrimination and victimisation claim, which then left two issues, first whether the indirect discrimination which the Respondent [The Law Society] had conceded was intentional. If it was not, then by virtue of section 57(3) of the 1976 Act no damages were payable. The second issue was whether the applicant was entitled to costs or not."
The Tribunal said in paragraph 6 that:
"After consultation with his friend and adviser, Mr Oteng, the Applicant [Dr Adoko] decided to withdraw his claim of intentional indirect discrimination; he conceded that the requirement or condition that in order to be exempt from the Society's examinations he had practised in England and Wales for eight years or more had not been applied to him because he was black and/or Ugandan. He also withdrew his claim for costs."
Therefore, the only order made by the Tribunal was a declaration that he had been unlawfully discriminated against, contrary to Section 12(1), read with Section 1(1)(b) of the 1976 Act; in that a requirement or condition had been applied to him that, in order to be exempt from the Society's examinations, he needed to have eight years practise in England and Wales.
The Counsel for the Society did not ask for costs, but asked that the Tribunal set out the conduct of the hearing so that it could be made plain what had happened in the event; that Dr Adoko decided to pursue a further claim elsewhere against the Society and the Tribunal agreed as it considered the request justified.
Dr Adoko appealed against that decision and made a number of allegations in the Notice of Appeal, which were required to be supported by an Affidavit. He said that the decision was wrongly made as a result of several errors of law. He said that there was new evidence which tended to substantiate allegations of bias which had become available since the conclusion of the hearing. He said that the application for direct discrimination was wrongly stated to be dismissed, whereas it was withdrawn, and further that the Tribunal had failed to make an order to the effect that the application moved by The Law Society, asking the Tribunal to dismiss his case was dismissed. That was also evidence of bias. He said that the interests of justice required that several manifest errors of law enumerated should be reviewed and corrected by declaring the whole trial to be a nullity, with the exception of the two orders obtained with the consent of the parties. He set out particular errors and has produced Affidavits in support of those errors of bias. He gives some details of alleged "asking for favours" on the part of The Law Society, the giving of presents, the prejudicing of future claims. He gives details of his complaints about the dismissal, his application for direct discrimination, and a whole host of other matters which run to many pages.
The Affidavits filed and the complaints about the conduct of the hearing were put before the Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal. This Tribunal has been supplied with a full statement of the comments of the Chairman on those complaints. Those are contained in a letter addressed to the Appeal Tribunal, dated 1 December 1995. We have considered the complaints in the Notice of Appeal and in the Skeleton Argument and accompanying documents and the response to those from the Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal.
We are satisfied that there is no error of law which is arguable on an appeal to this Tribunal. The position, in our view, that no award of damages for indirect discrimination was made, because he withdrew that claim. The complaint of direct discrimination was also withdrawn. That left only the matter of a declaration that he had been unlawfully discriminated against indirectly. A declaration to that effect was given. In those circumstances, so far as we can see, no useful purpose would be served by entertaining an appeal from a decision which was in substance won by Dr Adoko. We are unable to see that any of the alleged errors which he sets out in his Notice of Appeal, gives rise to an arguable point of law which should be dealt with at a full hearing. For those reasons this matter is directed not to proceed to a full hearing. The appeal will be dismissed.