[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hall v. Large & Anor [2001] UKEAT 358_99_0404 (4 April 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/358_99_0404.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 358_99_0404, [2001] UKEAT 358_99_404

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR T KIBLING (Of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF

1. In this matter which comes before us by way of Preliminary Hearing from the Employment Tribunal sitting at Stratford, whose reasons were promulgated on 14 December 1998, we have had no appearance by the Appellant herself. We have however, had the considerable advantage of being addressed by Mr Kibling of Counsel who was due to appear under the ELAAS Scheme but who will be invited to assist us as an amicus. He has persuaded us that there is an arguable basis to permit this case to go forward to an Inter Partes Hearing.
2. The employee made an application herself without any professional assistance on 27 January 1998. She made claims in respect not only of unfair dismissal but also of sex discrimination arising in employment. She had been employed until 21 November 1997. Accordingly, had there then been an equal pay claim she would have been within time.
3. At a hearing, before an Employment Tribunal sitting also at Stratford, her complaints of discrimination on the ground of sex were upheld but it appears that the way in which the Appellant put the case may not have been as an equal pay claim.
4. On 19 November she came before the differently constituted Tribunal whose decision she now appeals from. It took the view that it was dealing with an application made on 10 September 1998 in respect of equal pay and an unlawful deduction claim. There appears to be an inconsistency in approach arguably as between paragraph 9 and paragraph 4 of the decision in that we see that it can be argued that the latter may accept that there had been a claim in respect of the equal pay matters made on 27 January but not in fact determined by the earlier differently constituted Tribunal. However, it was the later date which was chosen as the commencement of the time limits.
5. Mr Kibling having referred us to the originating application filed in January and to the way in which the matter was dealt with before the earlier Tribunal has persuaded us that it may just be arguable that there was here an outstanding claim for equal pay which may not have been determined or dealt with by the Tribunal sitting in July and which therefore was one which was within time. We think this is a matter which can only be resolved hearing full argument.
6. Argument, we think will take half a day. Any skeleton arguments must be provided 14 days before the Appeal, together with copies of authorities to be relied upon. It will be Category B for listing purposes. Can we express our gratitude to Mr Kibling who has directed us to a point which we might not otherwise have noticed.