[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Chief Constable of Hertfordshire v. France [1999] UKEAT 97_99_2303 (23 March 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/97_99_2303.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 97_99_2303

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR M KURREIN (of Counsel) Messrs Hawkins Russell Jones Solicitors Osborn House Howardsgate Welwyn Garden City Herts AL8 6AR


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC: This is the preliminary hearing ex-parte of an appeal by the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire against the decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting in Bedford on 22 December 1998.

The issue for the Tribunal to decide was whether a claim by Mr J.A. France of victimisation, contrary to section 4 Sex Discrimination Act 1995, was justified. The decision of the Tribunal was that it was and they awarded the Applicant a sum of £23,736.40.

From that decision a Notice of Appeal was lodged by the Respondent dated 7 January 1999. Mr Kurrein, who appeared below on the substantive but not the compensation hearing below, has sought to amend that Notice of Appeal today. In his skeleton argument he raises four issues, each of which we think are appropriate to go forward for a full hearing before an Employment Appeal Tribunal. They are these:

(a) In failing to define a comparator for the purposes of section 4(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act, alternatively in using Michelle Green as a comparator for that purpose, there was an error in law;

(b) In failing to consider whether the Applicant had suffered less favourable treatment within section 4(1) of the same Act, there was a similar error,

(c) alternatively, the finding of discrimination made was proven and

(d) finally, there is a challenge to the award of £20,000 for injury to feelings.

The way those matters are set out, both in the Notice of Appeal which was originally lodged before the Tribunal and in the proposed amended Notice of Appeal, are not such as would help the Tribunal in identifying the grounds of appeal and the matters of fact on which the Appellant relies.

We therefore have suggested to Mr Kurrein (in place of the amended Notice of Appeal which was sent to us) a fresh amended Notice of Appeal should be prepared, in the next 14 days and leave for that Notice of Appeal to argue those issues should be raised before the Employment Appeal Tribunal at the commencement of the next hearing.