[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Vaughn v. Liverpool City Council [1999] UKEAT 344_99_2605 (26 May 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/344_99_2605.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 344_99_2605

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR C HAY (Representative)


 


JUDGE HAROLD WILSON: This has been preliminary hearing of the proposed appeal by Mr Vaughn against the decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting in Liverpool in September and November 1998. The decision of the tribunal was that the time for presenting the complaint should be extended and that the complaint should be dismissed. By a majority, there was an order for Mr Vaughan to contribute £100 to the respondent's costs. He appeals against that decision and there is a cross-appeal on behalf of the respondent Council against the decision of the Employment Tribunal to extend time.

The appellant was employed by the respondent Council and asked for his hours to be reduced in order to enable him to discharge his duties as a parent to his three month old child on a job share basis. The appellant's application was refused and he initiated the grievance procedure. Before any meeting was held in pursuit of the grievance procedure, the appellant was informed that he could have a job share arrangement but that it could not begin until his job sharer had been identified and employed. Subsequently, the appellant alleged racial discrimination and victimisation because of it, claiming that those two aspects had been features of his original grievance.

We have had the opportunity to consider the grounds of appeal submitted by Mr Courtney Hay on behalf of the appellant and also the skeleton argument of two foolscap pages which he had headed "Grounds of Appeal". We have also listened to Mr Hay amplify the matters set out in his skeleton argument and in particular paragraph 5.1.1.

In our judgment this matter should proceed to a full hearing with full argument on the following questions:

(a) Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in finding that the respondent Council did not discriminate against the appellant on racial grounds, and in making an award for costs against the appellant.

(b) Whether the Employment Tribunal failed to make material findings of fact and, as a consequence, misdirected themselves in law.

(c) Whether the decision of the Employment Tribunal is perverse.

We also give leave for the respondent Council's cross-appeal to go forward and to be heard on the question whether time should have been extended by the Employment Tribunal to validate the application by the appellant.

We direct that the appeal and the cross-appeal should be listed for hearing together and we further direct that the Chairman's Notes should be made available of the examination and cross-examination of the appellant, his witness Nicholas Beaumont, and the respondent's witnesses Miss Duffy and Mr Julius.

We further direct that Mr Hay should swear an affidavit, repeating the matters which he has asserted before the tribunal today concerning the deficiencies of the Employment Tribunal's extended reasons. The affidavit should be sworn, filed and served by or before 4 p.m. on Wednesday, 24th June 1999. Copies should be sent to the Chairman and members of the Employment Tribunal with an invitation for them to comment upon the affidavit's contents.

The appeal and cross-appeal should be listed on a suitable date to allow at least 28 days for the Chairman and his colleagues to respond to the affidavit and skeleton arguments should be submitted at least 14 days before the date set for the hearing of the appeal and cross-appeal.

We place this appeal in Category A and place a time estimate of at least one day on it.