[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Akateng v London Borough Of Lambeth [1998] UKEAT 261_98_3103 (31 March 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/261_98_3103.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 261_98_3103

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR L ADENEKAN (Of Counsel) Messrs Mathis Unit 231-232 First Floor Elephant & Castle Shopping Centre London SE1 6TE


 


JUDGE BUTTER QC: We have decided that the matter should go forward to a full hearing but it may, nevertheless, be convenient if I say a few words as to our reasons for that, and if I endeavour to give some guidance as to the future.

I should say, at the outset, that this Tribunal is concerned by the fact that the evidence to the Industrial Tribunal was given from the 12th to 14th June 1996. There was then a long break until further evidence was given from 9th to 13th December 1996. There was then an even longer break until evidence was given from the 15th to 19th September 1997. Then there was a further hearing, apparently In Chambers, on the 19th and 20th November. There may well be good reasons for those long breaks, but the position is so manifestly unsatisfactory that this Tribunal of its own motion feels that the Chairman should be asked to provide an explanation as to the delays which occurred.

The point is simply that it imposes a very heavy burden upon the Industrial Tribunal when it comes to reaching its conclusion and expressing its decision, to recall and to evaluate evidence which was given at different stages so far back in time. It is not our task to request the Appellant to include in his Notice of Appeal a point in relation to that. We simply draw it at this stage to the attention of the EAT for its future hearing and ask that the Chairman do deal with that matter by way of a letter.

In relation to the appeal itself, there are some features of the decision which seem to us to be unsatisfactory. We have of course had to give careful consideration as to whether there is an arguable point of law. Here, the main substance of the attack upon the Tribunal's findings on behalf of the Appellant, is that the decision was perverse. We express no view as to the validity of that contention. We merely express some concerns that the Tribunal has found that there was discrimination but then, very briefly, go on to say that they accept the explanations given on behalf of the Respondents.

There are a number of specific points which have been raised on behalf of the Appellant, which we need not reiterate today, but among the examples of points which have been noted, concerns for example the application in relation to Post CC/22. This is dealt with very briefly indeed in paragraph 11 of the decision. But there is no further reference to it until one comes to paragraph 52, where the Tribunal again deal briefly with that matter.

Where perversity is alleged, it is customary for the Employment Appeal Tribunal to direct that there should be Notes of Evidence. In this case, however, as we understand it, the evidence stretched over some thirteen days. We are very reluctant to make an Order that all of the Notes be provided. It is difficult for us to assess at this stage precisely what Notes may be necessary and in the particular circumstances, we think it only fair that the Respondents to the appeal should in turn have an opportunity of considering this aspect.

We therefore propose to direct that there be a Directions Hearing at which both parties should attend, in order to consider and to make representations as to what Notes may be required and as to any other aspect of the appeal which may help to shorten the matter to some extent.

In all the circumstances we direct that there be a Directions Hearing and therefore it is unnecessary for us at this stage to deal with the question of Skeleton Arguments.