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 >> London Borough of Ealing v. Johnson [1999] UKEAT 99_99_1803 (18 March 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/99_99_1803.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 99_99_1803 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR R N STRAKER
MR G H WRIGHT MBE
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
| For the Appellant | MR D BASU (of Counsel) Instructed by: YVONNE RAMSARAN Legal Services London Borough of Ealing Percival House 14/16 Uxbridge Road London W5 2HL |
HIS HONOUR JUDGE LEVY QC: This is a hearing under the PHD procedure of the Industrial Tribunal of an appeal by the London Borough of Ealing ("the Borough") in proceedings brought by Mrs M D Johnson claiming that she was the subject of discrimination.
The Industrial Tribunal held that her complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded but the Borough's treatment of her was discriminatory in the context of Section 5(2) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 ("the Act"). It is against that second holding that the Borough wishes to appeal. There has been no cross-appeal as to the finding that the dismissal was fair. Although these preliminary hearings are meant to last for a mere half hour, we have kept Mr Basu for rather longer than that in testing the arguments which he wishes to put forward on the appeal. Essentially they fall into two parts: The first is against the finding by the Tribunal that Ms Johnson had a physical disability. Mr Basu points to the fact that there was no finding as to what that physical disability was.
Within the four corners of the decision, we think there is much to suggest that it is rather like seeing the elephant - it may be hard to describe the animal but you know what it is when you see it. We do not think there is much merit in this point but for reasons which we will go on to, namely that the Tribunal erred in its consideration of Section 5(2) of the Act in that its finding was inconsistent with the fact that there were really no vacancies in the Council which could have been found for the Applicant. It may well be that when this has been investigated by a full hearing of the Tribunal, that Mr Basu may succeed on that issue - we pass no opinion at this stage, other than to say it is arguable. If this ground is to go forward to a full hearing, we think little extra time will be taken if the other ground is also investigated by a full tribunal. We will therefore allow both grounds of appeal on which Mr Basu addressed us to go forward to a full hearing. We will now hear from Mr Basu about the consequential directions which he seeks.
