[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Iqbal v. Consignia Plc [2002] UKEAT 1364_01_0508 (5 August 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1364_01_0508.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1364_1_508, [2002] UKEAT 1364_01_0508

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR DAVID N JONES (Of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs McManus Seddon Solicitors Second Floor, Midland House 14 Cheapside Bradford BD1 4JA


 


JUDGE J R REID QC

1. This is the Preliminary Hearing of an appeal by Mr Iqbal against the decision of an Employment Tribunal held at Leeds on 10 and 11 September 2001. The decision was sent to the parties on 11 October. By that unanimous decision the Tribunal, after making a procedural order relating to the name of the Respondent and reciting that Mr Iqbal's claim for racial discrimination was dismissed upon withdrawal, held that he was not discriminated against for a reason relating to his disability within the meaning of the 1995 Act. It went on to hold that he was unfairly dismissed but:

"his conduct prior to his dismissal was such that it was not just and equitable to order reinstatement, reengagement or any financial award."

It then refused an order for costs against Mr Iqbal

2. At the opening of this Preliminary Hearing Mr Jones on behalf of Mr Iqbal asked for leave to amend the grounds of appeal and we gave him that leave. This substitutes properly formulated grounds of appeal for the manuscript largely illegible and wholly unsatisfactory grounds which previously existed.
3. The grounds of the appeal which now exist can be taken under 4 heads. The first is that the Tribunal were wrong in law in holding that it would not be just under section 116 or just and equitable under section 122 or 123 to make any award or order reinstatement because the ground for that was said to be that Mr Iqbal had deliberately misled his employers about his medication and need to leave work early. It was submitted that this was not something to be taken into account in determining whether or not the compensation to be reduced because the dismissal was related to an incident where urine was found on the floor in the workplace and the matters the Tribunal took into account were wholly unconnected with the reason for the dismissal.
4. It seems to us that there is a point that can properly be argued in relation to that and the matter should go to a full hearing. The second ground raised is that there was a breach of the rules of natural justice and/or Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is said that the parties were not given an opportunity to address the Tribunal on the question of whether or not the Tribunal should hold that there should be no remedies hearing and no compensation.
5. It is now, I think, well established that if the Tribunal proposes to decide an issue each party should be given the opportunity of dealing with it. If the point has not been raised it is important that the parties be alerted to it in clear terms so that they can make any submissions that they think are appropriate. So far as this ground is concerned, clearly it should go through to a full hearing but of course at present all we have is Mr Iqbal's assertion that he was given no opportunity to address the proposed decision of the Tribunal that there should no remedies hearing and no compensation or order for re-engagement or reinstatement. In order that this can be properly dealt with we propose to direct that the Chairman do comment on this proposed ground of appeal and provide any note that he has which relates to this particular issue.
6. The next ground of appeal is that the decision was perverse. The Tribunal concluded that Mr Iqbal had been involved for a number of years in deliberately misleading his employers about his medication and that he misled his employers as to the nature of his medication and the need for him to leave early.
7. It is asserted that there is no evidential basis upon which the Tribunal could reasonably have reached its conclusion. This was a point which does not appear in the original manuscript grounds of appeal. It was only on giving leave to amend the Notice of Appeal that this ground came in. It was therefore not practicable for this hearing to give any directions about the provision of the Chairman's notes of evidence. We considered whether it was appropriate in this particular case to adjourn the Preliminary Hearing so that those notes of evidence could be obtained before it was decided whether this ground should go to a full hearing or not. Since there are other grounds going to a full hearing it seems to us that the better course is to give leave for this ground to go to a full hearing and to request that the Chairman provide his notes of evidence. At this stage we propose to direct that he produces his notes of evidence relating to Mr Iqbal's evidence.
8. If the Respondent wishes to have any further notes of evidence placed before the Appeal Tribunal it can make application for a direction that those notes also be produced and if the Chairman of the Tribunal takes the view that there are other passages in the evidence which are relevant and which should be before the Employment Appeal Tribunal, he is at liberty to produce any of those further notes of evidence which he thinks will be of assistance or which should be before the Tribunal.
9. The last ground of appeal raised is that there was a misdirection in law in the Tribunal deciding to reduce the compensatory award by 100%. In our judgment this is a point which should go for a full hearing together with the remaining points rather than try to separate it out and dispose of it by itself at this stage.
10. For those reasons therefore we will direct that the case goes to a full hearing. It will be listed in Category C and provisionally we will give it a time estimate of half of a day. If either party takes the view that this is too little or - though this is most unlikely - too much time then they should notify the Listing Office as soon as practicable so that arrangements can be made for an appropriate alteration in the time estimate given to it.