[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Christey v. Cummings Inc [2001] UKEAT 832_01_2111 (21 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/832_01_2111.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 832_01_2111, [2001] UKEAT 832_1_2111

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR EPSTEIN (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC

1. This is the ex parte hearing of an appeal by Mr N C V Christey from a Decision of an Employment Tribunal held at Newcastle upon Tyne on 14 August 2000, and 8 and 9 February and 9 May 2001.
2. The issue before the Tribunal was whether the Applicant was fairly dismissed and whether the Applicant's claim that he was unlawfully discriminated against, contrary to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was found not to be well founded and dismissed.
3. The Decision was sent to the parties on 31 May 2001, the Notice of Appeal was dated 12 July 2001. We have the advantage this afternoon of Mr Epstein appearing for the Appellant on the ELAAS scheme. He has drawn attention to something hinted at, but not highlighted, in the Notice of Appeal, to which we have referred, and he also seeks to take a procedural point on appeal, namely that it is clear from the documents that there was an unfair hearing below.
4. He submits that it was unfair in this sense; it is apparent from looking at paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Extended Reasons that the Appellant saw a medical specialist on 22 October 1999 and on the same day attended a formal meeting, where he was represented, about unsatisfactory performance, and he was there and then dismissed; on the face of it, Mr Epstein submits, that that was unfair.
5. However, we notice from paragraph 18 of the Reasons that the first appeal against the hearing of 22 October 1999 was held on 7 November 1999, and a further appeal was held on 9 December 1999. He was represented on 22 October 1999, and one would have thought that if there was that sort of procedural regularity, it would have been taken then and if it had not been taken then, it would have been dealt with on one or either of the appeals. There is no suggestion that this was argued below in any way, and we will not let the appeal go forward on that proposed additional point.
6. The second point, if I may make it relatively shortly, is that Mr Epstein submits that insufficient attention was paid below to what else could have been done, or should have been done for the Appellant, and therefore the holding that he was not discriminated against may be, or indeed, according to Mr Epstein, was wrong.
7. Having heard from Mr Epstein, we are satisfied that there is a point to go forward there. Mr Epstein would wish to put it differently to the way it is put in the Notice of Appeal presently drafted. There are hints of it, as we have said, in sub-paragraphs 2, 5 and 6 of the Notice of Appeal.
8. We will give leave for the appeal to go forward to a full hearing subject to revised Grounds of Appeal being lodged by the end of the week. The Respondent will obviously be able to put in any amended cross notice as is applicable. Estimate: half a day, category C, Skeleton Arguments in the usual way.