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 >> Cromwell Hospital v Francis & Anor [1998] UKEAT 654_98_0110 (1 October 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/654_98_0110.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 654_98_110, [1998] UKEAT 654_98_0110 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR I EZEKIEL
MR P R A JACQUES CBE
| APPELLANT | |
(2) MR K LICORISH |
RESPONDENTS |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE
| For the Appellants | MR PETER OLDHAM (of Counsel) Instructed by: Mr C Henson Regional Director PPC Consultants Ltd Enterprise House Great North Road Little Paxton Cambridgeshire PE19 4BQ |
JUDGE PETER CLARK: This is an appeal against the reserved decision of the London (North) Industrial Tribunal sitting on 12th, 13th and 16th March 1998, extended reasons for which are dated 27th March 1998.
The two applicants, Mr Francis and Mr Licorish, complained first of unlawful direct racial discrimination and, secondly, breach of contract arising out of their dismissal by the appellant, the Cromwell Hospital.
We have had the advantage of a detailed skeleton argument prepared by Mr Oldham on behalf of the appellants, supplemented by oral submissions.
We are satisfied that the appeal raises arguable points of law in relation to the finding of racial discrimination in both cases. First, we shall grant leave to amend the Notice of Appeal to add a new ground (iiia) to the grounds of appeal headed "Race Discrimination Claims", and we are satisfied that all of the matters raised in the Notice of Appeal under that head should proceed to a full hearing.
Secondly, in relation to the breach of contract claim which is dealt with shortly by the tribunal at paragraph 14 of their reasons, we think it arguable that there was no warrant for adding to the period of loss occasioned by any breach of contract arising out of the dismissal, the consultation period which is referred to in the tribunal's reasons. Accordingly, we shall allow the matter to proceed on this ground of appeal also.
For the purpose of disposing of the appeal at the full hearing, we shall direct that the Chairman be asked to provide his Notes of Evidence in relation to the following matters:
(1) the evidence given by Mr Joyce on behalf of the appellants concerning the employees' Lacey and Topliss and any evidence from the applicants concerned with those two employees which led to the finding in paragraph 13 of the reasons that the second applicant was treated less favourably than those two employees.(2) The Chairman should be asked to provide Notes of Evidence on which the finding at paragraph 2 of the reasons that anyone put forward by the Corps of Commissioners was likely to be white was based.
(3) The evidence given by Mr Joyce which supports the finding, under paragraph 13 of the reasons, that he stated that the appellants placed a low priority on equal opportunities.
We shall direct that this case be listed for three hours, Category C. There are no further directions.
