MS JULIANA OJINNAKA v SHEFFIELD COLLEGE [2000] UKEAT 201_00_2206
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant MR T KIBLING (of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Michael Scott & Co 27 Britannia Street London WC1X 9JP JUDGE CLARK This is an appeal by Ms Ojinnaka, the Applicant before an Employment Tribunal sitting at Sheffield under the Chairmanship of Mr R LL Williams, on 8 – 11 November 1999, followed by a day's deliberations in Chambers, against parts of the decision of that Employment Tribunal decision promulgated with extended reasons on 8 December 1999.[2]We say at once that we have not found the discursive style in which the Employment Tribunals reasons had been formulated by the Chairman easy to follow. Nevertheless it our task is to consider whether the reasons show that the Employment Tribunal found the necessary facts and correctly applied the law so as to arrive at permissible conclusions on the issues raised before them.[3]The Appellant, who is a black woman, was at the relevant times employed as a Senior Lecturer at the Respondent College.[4]She raised essentially 3 complaints:(1) that she was discriminated against on grounds of her sex through not having been consulted on matters relating to her role as Black Access course leader during her maternity leave in 1997/8. (the first issue)(2) that the Respondent, and in particular Mr John Cowley, who co-ordinated all access courses, discriminated against her on grounds of her sex/race by his conduct towards her following her return from maternity leave on 22 March 1998 (the second issue)(3) that she was victimised contrary to both the Sex Discrimination Act and Race Relations Act following her complaints about not being consulted during her maternity leave, particularly by Mr Cowley (who is from time to time referred to as Mr Cowling in the Employment Tribunals reasons).[5]By a majority, the Employment Tribunal rejected the Applicant's case on the first issue and unanimously found in favour of the Respondent on the second and third issues.[6]In his Notice of Appeal, Mr Kibling who appeared below challenges the Employment Tribunals findings on the first and third issues. He does not challenge the Employment Tribunal's finding on the second issue.[7]Following argument before us Mr Kibling now accepts that the findings of fact by the Employment Tribunal at paragraph 20 of their reasons prevent him from advancing any arguable case on the third issue, that is in relation to the claim of victimisation. In these circumstances the remaining question for us at this preliminary hearing is whether the appeal raises any arguable point or points of law on the first issue.[8]As to the first issue, Mr Kibling has persuaded us that particularly in view of the way in which the Employment Tribunals reasons are structured, there are arguable points of law in relation to the majority's finding that no discrimination was made out on this issue. Having been so satisfied for the purpose of this preliminary hearing, we shall say no more than that the grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal will be permitted to proceed to a full hearing on paragraph 6(i), (ii), (iii) only.[9]The remaining sub paragraphs (iv) and (vi), relate to the victimisation appeal which is abandoned. The remaining grounds of appeal will stand up to paragraph 25. Thereafter the remaining paragraphs 26 – 33, which relate to the victimisation claim are withdrawn and accordingly dismissed.[10]For the purposes of the full hearing the case will be listed for 3 hours category B. There will be exchange of skeleton arguments between the parties not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing. Copies of those skeleton arguments to be lodged with this court at the same time.