[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Lerica v. British Telecommunications Plc & Ors [2002] UKEAT 1492_01_1601 (16 January 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1492_01_1601.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1492_1_1601, [2002] UKEAT 1492_01_1601

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MS NATASHA SIVANANDAN (Lay representative)


 


MR COMMISSIONER HOWELL QC:

1. After some discussion we have concluded that the right course for us in this preliminary hearing is to direct that the Applicants' appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal on 29 August 2001, contained in Extended Reasons sent to the parties on 17 October 2001 at pages 6 to 7 of the appeal file, should be set down for a full inter partes hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal on one issue only.
2. That issue which we accordingly direct is whether, on the basis of what we were told by Ms Sivanandan, who appeared today before us for the Appellant, about the way the case was presented to the Tribunal on 29 August by Ms Lerica, the Applicant who was appearing in person on that date, it was an error of law for the Employment Tribunal to determine the preliminary issue of whether the third Respondent, Imagination Ltd, was joined as a proper party to the proceedings, and immediately to dismiss the proceedings as against it, on the basis only of the case alleged in the original Originating Application dated 9 February 2001 and the statutory provisions referred to in the Tribunal's Extended Reasons of 17 October 2001, and without regard to the additional factual case sought to be made against the Third Respondent by Ms Lerica, for knowingly aiding acts of discrimination under sections 42 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and section 33 of the Race Relations Act 1976 as identified in the paragraph beginning "It is my case" in the Application's written submission presented to the Tribunal on 29 August 2001 which has been produced to us.
3. Accordingly, we direct that the case should go forward for a full hearing on that one issue. We direct that the Notice of Appeal should be amended so as to substitute that as the sole ground of appeal for the purposes of the full hearing. Ms Sivanandan, we will direct that an amended Notice of Appeal should be lodged by you on behalf of Ms Lerica with the Employment Tribunal Office within 14 days of today.
4. We dismiss the appeal on all the other grounds sought to be argued in the Notice of Appeal or argued before us this morning. In particular, we were not satisfied that there was any arguable point that the Tribunal had erred in relation to the necessity of retaining the Third Respondent as a party to the proceedings, simply for the purposes of obtaining general discovery against it to assist the Applicant in formulating her case against that or the other Respondents, or in meeting the defence raised by British Telecom, the First Respondent in paragraph 5 of its response before the Tribunal, referring to measures that it had sought to take to minimise the possibility of discriminatory acts against Ms Lerica.
5. Nor were we satisfied that there was any arguable error in the Tribunal's rejection of an application we understand was made to it for an extension of time for Ms Lerica to serve Race Relations Questionnaires, when that application was not made until October 2001 and she had plainly failed to comply with the reasonable directions given by the Tribunal on 29 June 2001, in paragraph 21 of the directions given after the hearing on that date which appears at page 12 of our appeal file. Nor were we satisfied that there was any arguable error on this appeal in the Tribunal's failure on 29 August to join as an individual additional Respondent, a Mr Baker, who is the subject of allegations in the proceedings; that application not having been the subject of the Employment Tribunal's decision on 29 August and that issue not being properly before us on this appeal. That, therefore, is a matter on which Ms Lerica needs to take her own advice from Ms Sivanandan or otherwise.
6. Finally, we were asked to make a specific order that the Employment Tribunal hearing the case against the first two Respondents, which we understand has been fixed in the list for 21 January, that is next week, should cause that listing to be vacated. We decline to make any formal order about this. The listing is a matter for the Employment Tribunal itself, though it is right to record that we recognise that the continuation of this present appeal in the light of the order we have made is likely to make it difficult, if not impracticable, for that hearing next week to go ahead.
7. In the circumstances we will direct that the Chairman should be supplied with a copy of the transcript of this judgment and the Applicant's "written submission" for the Tribunal Hearing on 29 August 2001 and invited to give any comments he thinks fit for the assistance of the Appeal Tribunal on the extent to which the additional basis of claim against the 3^rd Respondent identified at the end of that document was sought to be relied on by the Applicant at that hearing.
8. The full hearing on this issue we have directed is to be set down in listing Category B with a time estimate of 3 hours. Skeleton arguments are to be exchanged between the parties and lodged with the EAT not later than 14 days before the date of the hearing to be fixed in due course.