BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Onifade v London Borough Of Southwark & Ors [1998] UKEAT 730_98_0110 (1 October 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/730_98_0110.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 730_98_110, [1998] UKEAT 730_98_0110 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H J BYRT QC
MS B SWITZER
MR T C THOMAS CBE
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | Mr S Bloch (of Counsel) (ELAAS) |
JUDGE JOHN BYRT QC: We are going to grant leave for this appeal to proceed to a full hearing and, in granting leave, we would like to express our appreciation of the difficulties this Tribunal would have experienced in handling a case which lasted for 22 days spread over a matter of several months. We would also like to express our appreciation to Mr Bloch who as part of the ELAAS scheme has represented Mr Onifade today and has reduced an otherwise extensive Notice of Appeal to two points both of which we accept as being arguable.
The first point is that it would appear the Employment Tribunal failed to make express findings relating to the claims of sex and race discrimination arising from events after 2 June 1995. In paragraph 39, they dismissed allegations in relation to events arising before that date on the grounds of the time limitation, but they seem to have left undecided those claims based on events thereafter.
The second matter we think arguable is that the Employment Tribunal failed to deal adequately or at all with Mr Onifade's allegations that the employers breached their own regulated procedures in the selection process for redundancy, and in particular relating to the matching up exercise and external advertising. They failed to consider those breaches in the context of their finding of victimisation or in the context of a discreet failure of the redundancy process.
We are of a view that this appeal should be limited to those two broad points in substitution for the present Notice of Appeal. This will necessarily mean that there will have to be an extensive amendment to the Notice of Appeal for which we give leave. I hope I am not presuming, but I think Mr Bloch has already indicated that he is prepared to give a hand in the drafting of that amendment. [Mr Bloch, 14 days?]
