Ayodele Adele Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham & Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Rimer |
| Judgment Date | 10 May 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWCA Civ 742 |
| Docket Number | Case No: A2/2012/3336 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 10 May 2013 |
[2013] EWCA Civ 742
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
His Honour Judge Peter Clark
Case No: UKEATPA/0401/12/SM
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Rimer
Case No: A2/2012/3336
The Applicant appeared in person
The Respondents did not appear and were not represented
This is a renewed application for permission to appeal. Mummery LJ refused permission on the papers on 22 February 2013 on the grounds that in his view an appeal would have no real prospect of success.
The applicant is Ms Ayodele Vaughan, who appears in person, as she has at all stages. She was the claimant in three sets of employment proceedings against the London Borough of Lewisham, her former employer, and nine other respondents. She asserted race discrimination, disability discrimination, victimisation, harassment, and public interest disclosure detriment. Her claim was heard over some 20 days in January and February 2012 by the London South Employment Tribunal (Employment Judge Balogun and members). The outcome of the tribunal's ostensibly meticulous 179-paragraph judgment, sent with reasons to the parties on 2 March 2012, was the dismissal of all the applicant's claims.
The applicant thereafter followed a path well-trodden by unsuccessful claimants before employment tribunals. She sought a review of the tribunal's decision, which was refused. She sought to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, but her Notice of Appeal was rejected at the paper sift stage under rule 3(7) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993, as amended. She then sought an oral hearing under rule 3(10), at which she attempted to persuade HHJ Clark that she had grounds of appeal with a real prospect of success. In a short judgment dealing also with other applications that she had, HHJ Clark expressed himself as satisfied that the proposed appeal was no more than an appeal on fact that was, as he put it, "dressed up as a perversity appeal". No appeal lies to the Appeal Tribunal against decisions of employment tribunals on questions of fact and so HHJ Clark dismissed the applicant's application and her appeal.
There followed the application for permission to this court for permission. All I have read, although I have, as I have explained to the applicant, certainly not read the entirety of the material in the two substantial files with which I have been provided, which run to over 1,000 pages, suggests to me, as both HHJ Clark and Mummery LJ have concluded, that there is likely to be nothing in the applicant's proposed appeal. It is, however, difficult on a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mrs S Solomon v (1) University of Hertfordshire (2) Paul Hammond
...an award of costs the status of the litigant was a matter to be taken into account: see Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham & Others [2013] IRLR 713 at paragraph 25, endorsing the approach set out in AQ Ltd v Holden [2012] IRLR 648. She submitted that the Claimant’s decisions could not be ......
-
Mr D Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council
...Claimant’s ability to pay. Arrowsmith v Nottingham Trent University [2012] ICR 159 and Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and others [2013] IRLR 713 considered and applied. Appeal allowed on that ground alone. Remitted to same Employment Note. The Respondent had taken the unusual step of ......
-
Mr D Herry v 1) Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council 2) Governing Body of Hillcrest School
...Claimant’s ability to pay. Arrowsmith v Nottingham Trent University [2012] ICR 159 and Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and others [2013] IRLR 713 considered and applied. Appeal allowed on that ground alone. Remitted to same Employment Note. The Respondent had taken the unusual step of ......
-
Mr G Bellavia v The University of Birmingham: 1300540/2016
...where everyone is treated the same. Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [1999] IRLR 572 (HL) Villalba v Merrill Lynch & Co [2006] IRLR 437 (EAT) If the protected characteristic had a significant influence on the discrimination is made out. These grounds do not have to be the primary groun......