[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Rand v. Punch Retail Ltd [2002] UKEAT 1450_01_2005 (20 May 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1450_01_2005.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1450_1_2005, [2002] UKEAT 1450_01_2005

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

JUDGE D M LEVY QC

1. This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mrs B J Rand ("the Appellant") from a Decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Leicester on 2 November 2001. She had made complaints of sex discrimination and dismissal by way of redundancy. Both of her complaints failed and were dismissed. The Decision of the Tribunal was sent to the parties on 12 November 2001.
2. From that Decision, the Appellant appealed by Notice dated 21 November 2001. Her Notice of Appeal goes into many pages, and she has supplied a large bundle for us to consider on this ex party application. She wrote to the Tribunal for some assistance in the preparation of this appeal because she said she would be unable to attend the Court because of her personal circumstances. By letter dated 12 December 2001, the Tribunal replied giving her some guidance that included the following:

"A skeleton argument is a document, which is basically a brief but concise description of the points one may wish to raise in support of an appeal (in the case of an appellant), or in rebuttal of an appeal (in the case of a respondent). In the EAT, it is preferable that a skeleton argument contains arguments as to employment law, since this is what the Tribunal panel will be looking for. Under paragraph 8 of the Practice Direction ……it is essential for the parties to lodge a skeleton argument, otherwise the Tribunal panel may be unable to follow the case properly, in the limited time that will be allotted to it."

Other advice was given, but it seems to us unfortunate that Mrs Rand was not told of the advantage of coming to the Tribunal, despite her difficulties, because of the existence of the ELAAS scheme. If she had had that advantage, she would have, no doubt, have had legal assistance in explaining to her the matters on which this Tribunal can allow appeals to go to a full hearing. Essentially only if there are arguable errors of law in the Reasons for the Decision of the Employment Tribunal will an appeal be allowed to go forward to a full hearing.

3. Essentially, what the Appellant seeks to do in the lengthy document which she has sent to us is to re-argue the case which she put before the Tribunal. What she was complaining about in her IT1, also a somewhat lengthy document, was thus summarised at page 21:

"1 Corporate bullying …….

2. Wrongly referred to company doctor. ….

3. Data Protection Act ……

4. Redundancy payment.

5. Time off to seek work in redundancy situation.

6. Health and safety appeal.

7. Contract of employment.

8. Claims for damages for breach of contract of employment.

9. Sexual discrimination - unfair treatment after maternity leave.

10. Unfair dismissal for health and safety reasons.

11. Right to return to work after maternity leave.

12. Unfair dismissal."

4. Her complaints were, in our judgment, well summarised in the Extended Reasons to which we have already referred. It seems to us that the rejection of the Appellant's claims were well explained by the Tribunal in those Extended Reasons. It would be otiose for us to set those out in full.
5. None of us who have carefully read the papers can see any grounds for permitting this appeal to go further. We understand and appreciate the care with which the Appellant has put together papers for our consideration in this appeal, but, unfortunately, the documents have not enabled any of us to find any points of law which are the slightest arguable. In the circumstances, while we may have sympathy for her, we cannot let this appeal go further, and accordingly, we dismiss it at this stage.