BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Leicester City Council & Anor v McConnell [1998] UKEAT 820_98_1410 (14 October 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/820_98_1410.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 820_98_1410 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR P M SMITH
MISS S M WILSON
(2) MR T WARREN |
APPELLANT |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE
| For the Appellants | Mr A Hillier (of Counsel) Instructed by: Mr J N Simon Messrs Harvey Ingram Owston Solicitors 20 New Walk Leicester LE1 6TX |
JUDGE PETER CLARK: This is an appeal by Leicester City Council and Mr Warren, the Council's Director of Education, the Respondents to a complaint of direct racial discrimination brought by Mrs McConnell, the Applicant, before the Leicester Employment Tribunal, against that Tribunal's decision to uphold her complaint. That decision, with extended reasons, was promulgated on 24 April following a hearing held on 11-13 March 1998.
The principal point taken by the Appellants is that the Tribunal fell into error by failing to make the comparison between the treatment afforded to the Applicant in not appointing her to the post of Education Officer Development and an actual or hypothetical comparator of different race or ethnic origin. Instead, it is submitted, the Tribunal asked itself the wrong question, namely whether she had been treated less favourably than she should have been under the Council's selection procedure.
The point is further developed in the Notice of Appeal and put in different ways, but that is the essential substance of the points in this appeal. We think that, particularly in the light of the approach of the Court of Appeal in Martins v Marks & Spencer PLC [1998] IRLR 326, this appeal is arguable and should proceed to a full hearing.
For that purpose we shall direct that the case be listed for three hours, category B. We do not think it necessary to order Chairman's Notes of Evidence, even to the limit of extent that is sought by Mr Hillier on behalf of the Appellants.
Finally there should be an exchange of skeleton arguments, not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing, copies of those skeleton arguments to be lodged at the same time at this Tribunal and it will be for the parties to agree a bundle of the documentary evidence which was before the Employment Tribunal limited to those documents relevant to the issues raised in this appeal.
