Appeal No.	 EAT/1502/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 24 May 2001

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT) 
MR D CHADWICK
SIR GAVIN LAIRD CBE

MR P RAJA	APPELLANT

1)	GOVERNING BODY OF JACK HUNT SCHOOL 
2)	PETERBOROUGH CITY COUNCIL	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR A CHOUDHURY
(of Counsel)
Reynolds Porter Chamberlain
Chichester House
278/282 High Holborn
London
WC1V 7HA	

MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT)

1	We have before us by way of Preliminary Hearing the appeal of Mr P Raja in the Raja v 
1) Governing Body of Jack Hunt School  2) Peterborough City Council.  Today Mr Raja has appeared before us by Mr Choudhury.  Our task has been made a little easier than it might otherwise have been by receipt of a recent letter of 23 May 2001 from Peterborough City Council in which the City Council says:

“The Council is not seeking any specific directions at this stage apart from the following.
The case should be given a category A or B status given that there are important implications arising from the possible construction and interpretation of the School and Standards Framework Act 1998.
That a time estimate for the Appeal be given as 1 day depending on whether the appellant is permitted to proceed to a full hearing.”

That letter seems to recognise that the case does raise important questions as to the construction of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, and, of course, that chimes in with Mr Choudhury’s skeleton argument on behalf of Mr Raja.

2	Speaking for myself, my comprehension of the Act and its schedules (based, as it is at the moment, only upon a citation to us of parts of paragraph 27 of the 17th schedule and other parts of its 16th schedule) falls very well short of being complete.  We bow to the views, as it would seem, of all concerned, that important questions do here arise and there are indeed, as it would seem from a rather cursory perusal, serious questions that require to be dealt with.  Accordingly there is to be a Full Hearing. 

3	However, nothing before us deals with the special position of EMTAG staff amongst whom Mr Raja finds himself.  The Tribunal said in their paragraph 6:

“In September 1999, the Jack Hunt School became a foundation school having a delegated budget, although it did not have a delegated budget at that time for the EMTAG staff.”

Later in paragraph 22 they say:

“However, with some misgivings, we are persuaded that the EMTAG staff were not so employed prior to the termination of Mr Raja’s employment.”

Therefore attention will need to be given not only to the parties laying before the Employment Appeal Tribunal in good time for the Full Hearing photocopies of the whole of the SSFA 1998, including all its schedules, but also any primary or secondary legislation that either side wishes to reply upon as to the Ethnic Minority and Travellers Achievements Grants (that is EMTAG) so that the position of persons employed for EMTAG purposes can be thoroughly understood by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

4	As it seems to us, all the questions raised in Mr Choudhury’s Notice of Appeal are affected, directly or indirectly, by the SSFA questions and by the EMTAG issue, so the whole of the Notice of Appeal is proper to go forward to a Full Hearing.

5	Mr Choudhury has addressed us as to the Education (Modification) of Enactments Order 1999 and has read some provisions of that Order to us with a view to his application today to amend paragraph 6.4 of the Notice of Appeal by adding 6.4.4 in the following terms:

“The Tribunal failed to apply, properly or at all, the provisions of the Education (Modification) of Enactments Order 1999.”

We give leave for that amendment.  It to be served on the Respondents within 7 days.  So the whole of the Notice of Appeal, including that amendment, is to go to a Full Hearing.  The matter should be reserved to the President of the day on the basis of an estimate of one day.  Skeletons are to be exchanged and sent to the EAT not less than 14 days before the hearing and bundles of relevant documents, including the legislative provisions both as to EMTAG and under the SSFA, with common agreed pagination, are to be available to the EAT not less than 14 days before the hearing.

Mr Choudhury is there anything more we can do at this stage?

No sir.