[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Heyes v. Lord Chancellor's Department [2001] UKEAT 0960_00_2802 (28 February 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0960_00_2802.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 960__2802, [2001] UKEAT 0960_00_2802

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR K HORNE (Counsel) Instructed By: Messrs Edwards Abrams Doherty Solicitors 125-131 Picton Road Liverpool L15 4LG


 


MISS RECORDER SLADE QC:

1. This is a preliminary hearing of an appeal by Dr Heyes from the decision of a Liverpool Employment Tribunal which decided that it had no jurisdiction to entertain her complaint. Her complaint was that she was not re-appointed as a panel member in the appeal service that replaced the Independent Tribunal Service. She complains that the failure to re-appoint her was by reason of her deafness and that the failure to re-appoint her amounted to unlawful discrimination.
2. The Employment Tribunal considered that it did not have jurisdiction to hear her complaint in that it held that its jurisdiction was excluded by reason of the Disability Discrimination Act Section 64 (2) which provides that the Act should apply to service for the purposes of the Minister of the Crown or Government department other than service of a person holding a statutory office. The Tribunal concluded that the applying for a post such as Dr Heyes' fell within the exclusion in Section 64 (2). It accordingly dismissed the application.
3. This appeal raises a short but potentially important point of law namely whether applications for appointment to a post are excluded by Section 64 (2). It has been fairly and rightly conceded that any complaint occurring during the service of a person holding a statutory office is excluded. However, it is said that the exclusion should be strictly construed so as not to remove individuals from the protection of the Act unless the statute clearly so provides. The Notice of Appeal sets out those points clearly and also raises the question of compatibility of the exclusion in Section 64(2) with the convention and the Human Rights Act. So far as arguments on Article 6 are concerned, no doubt those will be developed. So far as arguments on Article 3 are concerned, at this preliminary hearing stage we fail to see how Article 3 has any real bearing on the situation in this case but as we may have indicated, in our view this appeal does raise arguable point of law and should proceed to a full hearing.
4. We would have thought Mr Horne, that this is a very short point and you have been admirably succinct in your submissions to us. I do not know whether it will be you who is the advocate at the full hearing but we would have thought this matter could be disposed of within two hours, listing category A. Skeleton arguments to be lodged and exchanged not less than 14 days before the hearing.