[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Coley v. London General Transport Services [2000] UKEAT 683_00_1011 (10 November 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/683_00_1011.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 683_00_1011, [2000] UKEAT 683__1011

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR N BOOTH (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


JUDGE A WILKIE QC

1. This is an appeal by Mr Coley against a decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at London South, dated 12 April dismissing his applications respectively for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. This followed upon a hearing which took place on 3 April.
2. Mr Coley submitted a Notice of Appeal dated 24 May of this year in which he challenged the decision in respect of unfair dismissal. He then submitted, in preparation for this hearing, a Skeleton Argument dated 24 October, where he set out further matters by way of appeal in respect of the conclusion on disability discrimination.
3. In particular, he takes issue with the failure, as he sees it, of the Tribunal to consider the relevant statutory provisions, and in particular schedule 1, paragraphs 2, 4 and 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act and the statutory guidelines. Mr Coley has been represented by Mr Booth of ELAAS this morning; Mr Booth has not sought to add to the submissions of Mr Coley on the unfair dismissal matter, save to say, as is correct, that the unfair dismissal matter is a separate matter from the disability discrimination matter, and that a conclusion on one does not necessarily result in the same conclusion in respect of the other.
4. As far as the unfair dismissal matter is concerned, we are of the view that there is no arguable case that this Tribunal got their reasoning wrong in law. As far as that is concerned, the reasoning is set out in paragraph 7 of their decision on the basis of facts set out in paragraphs 4 and 5. In our judgement the reasoning is impeccable, and the conclusion one that is open to them on the facts found. As far as the disability discrimination is concerned, the disability was said to have arisen in June 1999. The hearing was taking place on 3 April 2000, that is to say well within a period of 12 months from the onset of that which was said constituted a disability. The Employment Tribunal dealt with the disability discrimination claim in paragraph 6 of their decision. That is a short paragraph - it makes no express reference to either the schedule or to the statutory guidance, but it is clear to us that they have addressed the issue of duration of the disablement and they had well in mind the 12 month period which is set out in the statutory provisions. They make findings of fact, apparently based upon what they were told in evidence at the Tribunal, namely: he is getting better, he can now lead a fairly normal life, he is training for another job, the condition only started in June 1999.
5. Based on those findings of fact, they then concluded that there was nothing permanent or long term about the disablement and that he therefore did not fulfil the definition in the statute, and on that basis they dismissed his claim. Mr Booth has sought, in effect, to re-open the factual matrix by telling us, on instructions, what the position presently is, and what the position was at the time.
6. In the face of the Tribunal's clear findings of fact, based upon what they record the Applicant as having told them, we are quite unable to see that the argument put forward by Mr Booth in his able submission or in Mr Coley's written Notice of Appeal, constitutes any arguable case that this Tribunal either erred in law or were perverse as to the conclusion which they found. Of course it would have been better if they had specifically addressed themselves to the various statutory provisions to which they were having regard, and the decision is in a somewhat truncated form, but nonetheless it is sufficiently clear to us that they were applying themselves to the correct test, and in applying that test, they had regard to their findings of fact and the conclusion to which they came is unassailable. Therefore we dismiss this appeal at this stage without requiring it to go forward to a full hearing.