Appeal No.	 EAT/685/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On  1 September 1998

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
MR A D TUFFIN CBE
MRS R A VICKERS

MS S KHANUM	APPELLANT

IBC VEHICLES LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MS A BROWN
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Anunay Jha
Principal Legal Officer
Commission for Racial Equality
Elliott House
10/12 Allington Street
London
SW1E 5EH

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):	The purpose of this hearing was to determine whether there is an arguable point of law in an appeal which the applicant wishes to make against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal which awarded her compensation having adjudged her to have been unlawfully discriminated against by her former employers, IBC Vehicles Ltd. 

	It is an appeal solely related to compensation. There are two issues which she would wish to argue. The first relates to a finding by the Industrial Tribunal that although the applicant was sensible in her decision to go to university to obtain a degree to enable her to better obtain employment, the fact that she took that course “inevitably broke the chain the causation”. Ms Brown would say, on her behalf, that that was not a correct statement of the legal position, and that the tribunal should have looked at the matter in a different way having regard to the law in relation to mitigation of loss.

	We regard that point as arguable. 

	Secondly, Ms Brown would wish to contend that the award of £6,000 even when accompanied by an aggravated damages award of £2,000, did not properly reflect the full extent of Ms Khanum’s injury to feelings and health that she had sustained.

	Normally, we would not regard a point on compensation of that nature as being arguable since it is very much a matter for the Industrial Tribunal to weigh and determine, but it may be that we should look at this question in the context of this case. We are willing to do so.

	It will be clear to both parties that this an ex parte hearing which means that we have heard only side. Nothing that we have said at this time should be taken as an indication as to how the appeal will be determined when it comes on for a full hearing.

	If Notes of Evidence are required, and we think they may not be, in relation to either of the grounds of appeal, then an application can be made for them. I am not encouraging such an application to be made because we are parsimonious in the orders we make for Notes of Evidence. But this is a case possibly in relation to the injury to feelings award Notes might be of assistance. If Notes were to be sought, I would hope that both parties, since they were legally represented at the compensation hearing, would, through their lawyers, be able to agree their own note or notes as the case might be, of the evidence given at that hearing which touches on that issue, so that if the Chairman is requested to provide his Notes of Evidence, he will at least have the benefit of a note from the parties setting out what their recollection was. It goes without saying that if that process is adopted, the Industrial Tribunal Chairman’s Notes will prevail, so far as the appeal hearing is concerned.

	It is a Category A case. It will last for three quarters of a day. Skeleton arguments are to be provided in the normal way.

	I can give no indication as to when this is likely to come on, but I think as parties are here they should know that we have a waiting time of the order of four to five months at this time. It is likely to be in the early part of 1999 and not before.