[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Ajibade v. Haringey [2001] UKEAT 978_00_2601 (26 January 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/978_00_2601.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 978__2601, [2001] UKEAT 978_00_2601

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Appellant


 


MR RECORDER UNDERHILL QC

1. This is an appeal against an Order of an Employment Tribunal at London Central dismissing the Appellant's claim for racial discrimination.
2. The Appellant has written to the Tribunal saying that he does not intend to appear today. He does not seek an adjournment, and we are accordingly proceeding to deal with the preliminary hearing of the appeal on the basis of the papers before us.
3. The Appellant had been employed by the Respondents, the London Borough of Haringey, on a temporary contract in 1995. The contract had not been renewed, because of unsatisfactory performance, and a recommendation was placed on his file that he should not be re-employed in future.
4. In August 1999, the Appellant applied for a vacant post as an Estate Services Officer. He was shortlisted but his application was not taken further when the record of his previous employment was found.
5. The Appellant claimed that the reason for his non-appointment was that he was an African. The Employment Tribunal, having heard evidence from the Appellant and from witnesses from the Respondent, accepted that the reason for his non-appointment was, in fact, his previous poor record. That is a finding of fact which cannot be challenged, and on the face of it was fatal to the application and is fatal to this appeal.
6. The Appellant has put in grounds of appeal raising ten points. We will deal with them very briefly. Point (a) is no more than a general allegation that the Tribunal failed to accord him his rights, with a reference to the Human Rights Act: it is too unspecific to give rise to any ground of appeal. Point (b) is merely a challenge to the factual findings of the Tribunal.
7. Point (c) asserts that there had been no allegation of misconduct made against him in the previous employment. As to that, whether or not the recommendation on the file relating to the employment in 1995 was justified is immaterial in these proceedings. The only question for the Tribunal was whether that was the reason for his non-appointment, rather than any racial reason.
8. Point (d) we frankly fail to understand and does not appear to relate to the allegation of racial discrimination in any event. Point (e) raises allegations of fact. Point (f) again we have difficulty in understanding, but it appears to be a challenge to the adequacy of the evidence; it does not raise any question of law. Point (g), again, has no relation to the allegation of racial discrimination, which was the only matter before the Tribunal; and the remaining points (h) to (j) are again matters of fact, insofar as they are allegations of any specific nature at all, and do not give rise to any issue of law. For those reasons, we dismiss this appeal.