![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Ratcliffe v. J Hussaney Chester City Football Club [2002] UKEAT 1411_01_1904 (19 April 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1411_01_1904.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1411_1_1904, [2002] UKEAT 1411_01_1904 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal | |
On 14 January 2002 | |
Before
MR COMMISSIONER HOWELL QC
MR J R CROSBY
MR S M SPRINGER MBE
APPELLANT | |
CHESTER CITY FOOTBALL CLUB |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
For the Appellant | MR J ALGAZY (of Counsel) Instructed By: Mr G Tobin Messrs George Davies Solicitors Fountain Court 68 Fountain Street Manchester M2 2FB |
MR COMMISSIONER HOWELL QC:
"35 For the reasons given in our judgment in respect of the dismissal of the Appellant's claim for discrimination by way of victimisation the Employment Tribunal have erred in law by failing to provide proper and adequate reasons for their decision.
36 Accordingly we allow the appeal and remit the Appellant's claim for discrimination by way of victimisation against the second Respondent based on the failure of the first Respondent to offer the Appellant a professional contract to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal.
37 As we see it the only live issue on that claim relates to causation but in our judgment the appropriate course for us to adopt is to remit the whole claim and thus every aspect of it to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal."
"33 Aiding unlawful acts
(1) A person who knowingly aids another person to do an act made unlawful by this Act shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as himself doing an unlawful act of the like description.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) an employee … for whose act the employer … is liable under section 32 … shall be deemed to aid the doing of the act by the employer … ."
Consequently, it is suggested, the Appeal Tribunal has unwittingly directed an impossibility. The only possible basis of liability on the part of Mr Ratcliffe depends on there having been an unlawful act by his employer, and how can that be so when so far as the Club is concerned the 1997 Tribunal's finding of no unlawful victimisation still stands, the appeal proceedings against that finding never having been pursued to a conclusion against it? Therefore it was submitted to the Employment Tribunal by way of preliminary issue on 25 July 2001 that the only course for it was to discontinue all proceedings on the rehearing as regards Mr Ratcliffe, except for the formal purpose of declaring that he could not be made liable personally for victimisation in the circumstances. The Tribunal rejected that argument and it is contended on the present appeal before us that they were wrong in law to do so.
"... the initiation of proceedings in a court of justice for the purpose of mounting a collateral attack upon a final decision against the intending plaintiff which has been made by another court of competent jurisdiction in previous proceedings in which the intending plaintiff had a full opportunity of contesting the decision in the court by which it was made."