Dass v Tower Hamlets College [1999] UKEAT 127_98_2201

EAT

Dass v Tower Hamlets College

[1999] UKEAT 127_98_2201 · 1999-01-22

MR JUSTICE CHARLES : Mr Dass was represented by Peter Wallington who undertook to lodge a re-amended Notice of Appeal setting out four grounds of appeal as outlined to us within 21 days.

In paragraph 18.1 of his affidavit sworn on 15 December 1998 (page 21 of the bundle) Mr Dass says that Ms Zera stated categorically that it was her intention to appoint a Sylheti for that post (i.e. the post of Assistant Principal etc.).

The Extended Reasons make no reference to this evidence alleged by Mr Dass to have been given by Ms Zera, the Principal of Tower Hamlets College, during the hearing.

(k) where it is said:

"Nor did the Tribunal find any evidence that he was treated less favourably either because he was from the Khulna region of Bangladesh not Silet, and that he was a Hindu not a Muslim. The Applicant's own witness, Mr Gani also rejected this suggestion."

We concluded that if, and we repeat if , this evidence was given by Ms Zera the second to fourth grounds of appeal outlined by Mr Wallington would be reasonably arguable. These grounds related to(a) Case (No.2) and thus in particular paragraph 10 of the Extended Reasons,

(b) victimisation in respect of Case (No.3) and in particular the finding in paragraph 11(e), and

With more hesitation we decided on the same hypothesis that the first ground which related to Case (No.1) concerning part time work and was directed in particular to the finding in the first sentence of paragraph 9(1) of the Extended Reasons would also be reasonably arguable.

We therefore directed that if Mr Wallington filed a re-amended notice of appeal signed by him setting out the grounds he outlined to us in 21 days this appeal should proceed and that notes of Ms Zera's evidence should be obtained.

We made it clear that if it is not established that Ms Zera gave such evidence it could not be properly represented to a Tribunal hearing this matter in the future on any issue, including costs, that we had concluded that the appeal was reasonably arguable.