THE PRINCE'S TRUST (2) MR J SCOTT (3) MS J GARDNER v MR D R BECKFORD [2001] UKEAT 303_01_1809

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

BAILII case number: [2001] UKEAT 303_01_1809

Case No Appeal No. EAT/303/01

Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

Between

THE PRINCE'S TRUST (2) MR J SCOTT (3) MS J GARDNERAPPELLANT

MR D R BECKFORDRESPONDENT

Before

Mr Recorder Langstaff

Date 18 September 2001

[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellants MR SIMON DEVONSHIRE (of Counsel) Instructed By: Messrs Bates Wells & Braithwaite Solicitors Cheapside House 138 Cheapside London EC2V 6BB MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC: This is a preliminary hearing in an appeal against a decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at Manchester on 22 January 2001. By its decision the Employment Tribunal upheld the employee's complaint of unfair dismissal against the First Respondent. There is no appeal, we are told against that finding and, indeed, issues of compensation have been resolved.

[2]Within the Notice of Appeal and in his skeleton argument Mr Devonshire, on behalf of the Respondents, has raised issues which seem to us to be arguable. We shall say no more about them. They relate both to the findings of direct discrimination on the ground of race against all Respondents and a finding of victimisation contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976 against the First and Second Respondents.

[3]The reasons that we are persuaded to think that there are arguable points are essentially those contained in the Notice of Appeal, as amplified by the skeleton argument, and so we need say no more about those.

[4]As to directions, we think the hearing will take one day. We have allowed within that a little time for judgment. If the Tribunal then thinks it appropriate to deliver judgment on the day, we would expect and hope that the argument on both sides could be restricted within the period of about one and a half hours or so. It should be Category B.

[5]Because a number of the matters raised in the grounds and skeleton argument relate to evidence, we think it appropriate in this case that the Chairman's notes of evidence of Mr Beckford, Mr Scott and Ms Hemming should be available. If any documents, which are not presently in the Appeal Tribunal file, are to be relied upon they should be bundled in a bundle agreed with the Respondent. That bundle, skeleton arguments and photocopies of any case law to be relied upon should be provided to this Tribunal no less than 14 days prior to the date of the hearing.