[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Camden v. Mohammed [1999] UKEAT 556_99_1507 (15 July 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/556_99_1507.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 556_99_1507

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MISS A MORGAN (of Counsel) Instructed By: London Borough of Camden Legal Services The Town Hall Judd Street London WC1H 9LP


 


JUDGE CLARK: By an Originating Application presented to the London North Employment Tribunal on 26 November 1998, the Applicant complained of racial harassment in his employment with the Respondent Council as an Information Technology Manager. In Box 11 of his form IT1 he claimed that he had been the victim of a sustained campaign of bullying, intimidation, denagradation (sic) and belittling. The campaign, he said, started in March 1998 and continued to date. He in fact signed his Originating Application on 20 October 1998. He attached to his form IT1 a chronological list of events on which he relied beginning on 9 March 1998. The last entry was for 3 July 1998; it read:

"GMB [his trade union] made representation to the Director of Education".

1. The claim was resisted. By their Notice of Appearance, the Council took a point that the claim was out of time. That plea was listed for a preliminary hearing to take place on 12 February 1999. Shortly before that hearing the Applicant's legal advisors faxed the Employment Tribunal on 5 February seeking leave to amend the IT1, which they mistakenly referred to as having been lodged on 20 October 1998. The nature of the proposed amendment appears at the foot of that letter. It seems that leave to amend was granted ex-parte by a Chairman on 8 February 1999, without reference to the Council.
2. At the hearing held on 12 February, the Council sought to reopen the question of leave to amend in relation to the amendment contained in the letter of 5 February from the Applicant's solicitors. It also appears that at the hearing the Applicant raised yet further particulars of complaint stretching from July 1998 up to and beyond 26 November 1998. The Tribunal decided that the complaint was within time, both in relation to individual acts and in relation to a series of continuing acts under section 68(7)(b) of the 1976 Act.
3. Against that decision this appeal is brought. Having listened to Miss Morgan and considered the grounds of appeal in this case, and the Skeleton Argument, we are satisfied that the matter ought to proceed to a full appeal hearing. The particular topics for debate will be whether the Tribunal properly dealt with the question of amendment of the Originating Application and further, whether they were correct in law in finding that the individual acts complained of were within time. Alternatively, whether this was truly an allegation of continuing acts for the purpose of section 68(7)(b).
4. In these circumstances, we shall permit the matter to proceed. It will be listed for half a day, Category C. There will be exchange of Skeleton Arguments between the parties not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing. There are no further directions save that copies of those Skeleton Arguments be lodged with this Court at the same time.