MR Y T HUSSAIN v CITY LIVING (LEEDS) T/A MORGANS, & OTHERS [2000] UKEAT 387_00_0507

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
BAILII case number: [2000] UKEAT 387_00_0507Case No Appeal No. EAT/387/00Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
Between
MR Y T HUSSAINAPPELLANTCITY LIVING (LEEDS) T/A MORGANS, & OTHERSRESPONDENT
Before
His Honour Judge Wilcox Miss A MackieDate 5 July 2000
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant MR HUSSAIN IN PERSON. JUDGE WILCOX: This is an appeal from the Employment Tribunal sitting at Leeds. The decision being in a reserved judgment of 14 February 2000 in these terms:
"The unanimous decision of the Employment Tribunal is that the Applicants complaint that the first, second and third Respondents unlawfully discriminated against him on the grounds of his race is not well founded and that complaint is therefore dismissed."
We have had argued before us by Mr Hussain in his principle compendious ground of appeal, that this was a perverse finding. He attacks the whole of the evidence and the approach of the Tribunal. We remind ourselves that the Tribunal is a body that is charged with judging complaints as an industrial jury, that has the advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses, of hearing in particular witnesses being cross examined and having their evidence tested. One thing that we are clear about is this is that Mr Hussain is a talented person. This is evident for two reasons: 1. The quality of his documentation and his written arguments 2. The manner in which he has presented his case before us today. 6 (u) "I claimed that a number of employers whom I have brought cases against and the legal representatives of the respondents and got together and discussed ways of discrediting my actions and thought of ways of fighting my cases by sharing their pool of information and resources, and solicitors advising their clients how best to cobble together explanations to be excused from the way in which they had dealt with me. In particular, I referred to various newspaper articles about me published between 1 June 1999 and 24 July 1999, including one by the Daily Mail which the respondents accepted during cross-examination that they had seen and read. The second respondent's evidence on this was that he "felt a fool because he had walked into the trap and been caught." At paragraph 26 of the decision, the tribunal failed to even record anywhere in the decision that the respondents became aware of the fictitious job application submitted by me in the name of Miss Laura Stevens from as far back as June 1999, and according to their own evidence, certainly no later than July 1999 following the Daily Mail article." "He felt a fool because he had walked into the trap and been caught." seems to us to have no credible basis if someone had seen that article and had admitted that he had seen the article, and that it had blown the gaff, it would be wholly incredible in our view that knowing of the fictitious applicant he would go on and produce a concocted document relating to her. There would have been no point. 1. They directed themselves properly in law. 2. When there were matters that could be blemishes upon the credit on the Respondents, they took those in account; they dealt with them. They saw and heard the witnesses.