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 >> Jones v Ministry Of Defence [1998] UKEAT 34_98_0603 (6 March 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/34_98_0603.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 34_98_0603, [1998] UKEAT 34_98_603 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR D CHADWICK
MRS P TURNER OBE
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | MR JONES APPELLANT'S HUSBAND |
JUDGE PETER CLARK: The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a personal secretary at its Central Medical Establishment between March 1992 and September 1995. On 8 March 1996 she presented a complaint of harassment, which was treated as a claim of sex discrimination and permitted to proceed, notwithstanding its being presented outside the ordinary three-month time limit.
The nub of her complaint related to an appraisal report presented to her on 5 December 1995 by Dr Murray, to whom she worked as personal secretary, and the office manager, Flight Lieutenant Griffiths. She took exception to being downgraded as to her promotion prospects from 3 to 4 on the performance scale. Subsequently she raised a form of grievance which included the issue of harassment against some 10 people, male and female.
The complaint came on for a substantive hearing before an Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (North) (Chairman: Mr D H Roose) on 23 July 1997. For the extended reasons promulgated on 21 August 1997 the Tribunal dismissed the complaint. Against that decision the Appellant now appeals.
The grounds of appeal fall into two parts. Allegations of bias against the Tribunal and an attempt to re-open factual issues determined by the Tribunal under the general heading of perversity.
As to the first, the complaint is that the evidence of the Appellant and her witness, a former colleague, was dismissed by the Tribunal and the evidence of Mr Griffiths accepted. However, that is the fact-finding function of Industrial Tribunals. We can see no arguable case for an appearance of bias.
As to the second, it is said that the Appellant's Counsel below failed to pick up a point on Mr Griffiths' statement which undermined his oral evidence and the Tribunal also missed the point. That is not a matter which will ground an appeal on point of law to this Employment Appeal Tribunal. Nor, indeed, do the other matters which are raised by the Appellant on paper in a skeleton argument and by her husband, Mr Jones, in oral submission before us.
We have considered the Industrial Tribunal's findings and reasoning and we can see no arguable case of perversity to go to a full appeal hearing.
In these circumstances at this preliminary stage we must dismiss this appeal.
