Appeal No.	EAT/377/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 16 July 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR J R CROSBY
MR D J JENKINS MBE

MRS F MOYO	APPELLANT

WALTHAM FOREST SPECIALIST 
HOUSING CONSORTIUM LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR A ILES
(OF COUNSEL)
(Instructed by)
Messrs J R Jones
56a The Mall
Ealing 
London W5 3TA	

	JUDGE PETER CLARK:	This is an Appeal by Mrs Moyo, the Applicant, before the Stratford Employment Tribunal against that Tribunal’s decision dismissing a complaint of racial discrimination against her former employer, the Respondent, Waltham Forest Specialist Housing Consortium Ltd.  Having considered the way in which the skeleton argument has been framed by Mr Iles, on behalf of the Appellant, and having considered the way in which the Tribunal approached the question of victimisation under Section 2 of the Race Relations Act, it seems to us that it would be right to adjourn this preliminary hearing pending the outcome of the Appeal to the House of Lords in Nagarajan -v- London Transport [1998] IRLR 73.  We have therefore acceded to Mr Arnold’s application for an adjournment for that purpose.  Once their Lordships’ speeches have been given in that case the matter should be returned to me for a further direction as to whether the matter is to be restored for preliminary hearing or to proceed to a full appeal hearing.

1	The second part of the Appeal relates to the Tribunal’s failure to deal with the complaint of direct racial discrimination which was raised in the Originating Application.  It appears from the Tribunal’s Extended Reasons that at the hearing the Appellant confined her case to victimisation only.  In those circumstances, it is not open to the Appellant to appeal on the grounds that the Tribunal ought to have dealt with the complaint under Section 1 of the Act (see Mensah -v- East Hertfordshire NHS Trust [1998] IRLR 531.)  If it is said that the claim under Section 1 was not abandoned at the Hearing, then it will be necessary for the Appellant to file affidavit evidence to that effect, so that the comments of the Chairman and indeed, the Respondent to the Appeal may be obtained.  

2	On this basis the preliminary hearing is adjourned.