Appeal No.	EAT/1084/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 5 March 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MRS T A MARSLAND
MR B M WARMAN

MR J ABI-MU-HEAL	APPELLANT

UNISON	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT	

	JUDGE LEVY QC:		In our list today on the ex parte preliminary hearing procedure there is an appeal by Mr J Abi-Mu-Heal in proceedings. The respondent is UNISON. He appeals against a decision of an Employment Tribunal held at Bedford on 6th and 7th July 1998. The decision was sent to the parties on 14th July 1998. The claim made by Mr Abi-Mu-Heal was that he had been victimised under the Race Relations Act 1976, section 2. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that the claim was not well-founded. The Tribunal dismissed it.

	The grounds on which the appeal is brought are these:

“(i)	The Industrial Tribunal wrongly set aside an order for the attendance of a witness, namely Adrian Longden, whose attendance had been requested by the Appellant and who was able to give relevant evidence;
(ii)	The Industrial Tribunal failed to properly exercise its discretion in setting aside the order for the attendance of Adrian Longden without making any, or any adequate enquiries of the parties;
(iii)	The Industrial Tribunal wrongly set aside an order for the attendance of a witness, namely Lorraine Howlett, whose attendance had been requested by the Appellant and who was able to give relevant evidence.
(iv)	The Industrial Tribunal failed to properly exercise its discretion in setting aside the order for the attendance of Lorraine Howlett without making any, or any adequate enquiries of the Appellant;
(v)	The Industrial Tribunal failed to permit the examination of Lorraine Howlett by the Appellant despite her attendance at the Industrial Tribunal.”

	Mr Abi-Mu-Heal has sworn an affidavit dated 23rd September 1998 which concludes by saying:

“I have been denied a fair hearing.”

The affidavit sets out a little of the material about the witnesses. Mr Abi-Mu-Heal has not attended this morning to present his application, although he had been duly notified of this ex parte preliminary hearing.

	We have looked at his affidavit in which he complains in particular that he was not allowed in introduce certain evidence and stress the attendance of persons whom he wished to cross-examine. We have carefully read the decision of the Employment Tribunal. We consider that the decision of the tribunal not to admit certain evidence which it considered irrelevant to the issues, was one which it was entitled to take in the circumstances of the case. We are satisfied from having read the decision carefully, that there was a full and fair hearing of the complaints which Mr Abi-Mu-Heal made. It is clear that this proceedings followed the withdrawal of earlier proceeding by Mr Abi-Mu-Heal and it was evidence on the issues on the present hearing and not the past hearing which would have been admissible on the hearing before the tribunal. It is clear from reading the decision that what Mr Abi-Mu-Heal was attempting to do was to introduce evidence about the matter which he had allowed to be dismissed. The witnesses whom he sought to have called could have assisted his case. In the circumstances, there is no issue of law raised which should go forward, in our judgment, to a full hearing. Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal at this stage.