Appeal No.	EAT/1457/96
	EAT/647/97
	EAT/1207/97
	EAT/1132/98
	EAT/342/98	EAT/129/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 20 April 1999

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
(AS IN CHAMBERS)

REDCAR & CLEVELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL	RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

MS M O'DONOGHUE	APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council	MS S BLOCH
(OF COUNSEL)
(Instructed By)
Short Richardson & Forth
Solicitors
4 Mosley Street
Newcastle Upon Tyne
NE1 1SR	
For Ms O’Donoghue	MS T GILL 
(OF COUNSEL)
(Instructed By)
Mortons
Solicitors
17 Fawcett Street
Sunderland
Tyne & Wear
SR1 1RL	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):	This is a Hearing for Directions.  There are a number of Appeals and it is obvious, as it seems to me, that it would be sensible for the Employment Appeal Tribunal to hear all the matters, one after the other, so that eventually, a decision can be given which will dispose of all the issues between the parties.

	As a result of discussions between Counsel and the Court, it seems to me that 4 days should be set aside for the hearing of all these matters, that it should be listed before the President for the time being of the EAT, since this is an important case for both parties.  Essentially, Ms O’Donoghue succeeded in a complaint of unlawful discrimination and subsequently, of victimisation.  Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council wish to appeal on the discrimination finding.  Ms O’Donoghue complains about the remedies which she was granted.  That is the background.  

	There is a dispute between the parties as to the extent to which the Employers should be entitled to refer to the victimisation decision when it comes to their appeal on the discrimination matter which was an earlier decision of an Employment Tribunal.  It is said by Counsel that there is no direct conflict between those two decision and that it would be sensible for the EAT to look at them as a whole.  Whereas Ms Gill’s submission will be, in due course, that each decision should be looked at discretely and that it is not open to the Employers to refer to the victimisation decision when advocating the discrimination appeal.  That is an issue which I have not sought to resolve because it seems to me, an issue which should be determined by the Court which is determining these Appeals.  If I were the President hearing them, I would take the view that it would be sensible to hear, at the outset, arguments on that issue, although I would not contemplate, at this time, giving a judgment immediately thereafter.  I would take the view that it would be sensible for there to be one judgment in this case at the end of all the arguments on all the Appeals, but it may be that a different President would take a different view.  Thereafter, I would think it sensible - and the parties agree about this - that the Redcar appeal on the discrimination decision should next be heard and then Ms O’Donoghue’s Appeal on the victimisation decision should be heard, and then her appeal in relation to the First Remedies decision  and the two review decisions, which have given rise to appeals.  Then Ms O’Donoghue’s Appeal in relation to what has happily been called “The Document Appeal” which I will identify as “EAT/342/98” which is a self-contained Appeal relating to discovery and a Costs Order.  Finally, the second Remedies Decision and Appeal.

	To give an indication of the size of the case, the decision on victimisation by the Employment Tribunal ran to some 70 pages and there is a lot of pre-reading to be done and it is obviously desirable that the members of the EAT who are sitting in judgment on these Appeals should have pre-read the papers.  The parties have kindly indicated to us that they will provide us with a master copy of the documents presented in a way which was discussed at this Directions Hearing which will greatly facilitate the way in which the case is presented and the EAT can prepare itself for the Appeal.  I am not going to make an Order in relation to that or in relation to skeleton arguments because both parties are represented by Counsel, who fully understand as a result of discussions and from past practice what is required of them.

	I do not think there are any other directions that I need to give at this time, save to indicate that I have suggested to the parties that at least they consider the question of conciliation, although I have nothing practical to suggest to them at this time.  But of course, it goes without saying that the Court is always ready to give any assistance in that direction if such is requested of it.