Yeboah v Crofton
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judge | LORD JUSTICE PILL,LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY,Lord Justice Mummery,Sir Christopher Slade,Lord Justice Brooke |
Judgment Date | 01 July 2003 |
Neutral Citation | [2002] EWCA Civ 794,[2003] EWCA Civ 1201,[2001] EWCA Civ 1309 |
Docket Number | A1/2003/1022,Case No: A2/2002/0081,NO: A1/2001/1183 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Date | 01 July 2003 |
[2001] EWCA Civ 1309
Lord Justice Pill and
Mr Justice Rimer
NO: A1/2001/1183
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
MS K MONAGHAN (instructed by Gerard Rushmore, 495 Silbury Blvd, Central Milton Keynes MK92 AH) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
MR CROFTON, the Respondent appeared in person
This is an application for permission to appeal made by Samuel Kennedy Yeboah. He seeks permission to appeal from an order of the Employment Appeal Tribunal dated 16th May 2001. The tribunal had allowed an appeal from decisions of the Employment Tribunal sent to the parties on 1st September 1998. 2. I quote the first paragraph of the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal:
"This is the unanimous decision of the EAT in respect of the appeals by Mr Bernard Crofton former Director of Housing of the London Borough of Hackeny against findings made against him by the Industrial Employment Tribunal at London North in four applications sought against him by Mr Samuel Yeboah, former head of personnel services at Hackney."
I refer only to one decision of the Employment Tribunal, that in the case 55617 of 1994, the Tribunal stated "The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that Mr Crofton discriminated against Mr Yeboah and that the London Borough of Hackney did not discriminate against Mr Yeboah."
Thus, the borough were also parties to some of the proceedings. Seven cases were heard together by the Employment Tribunal and the total hearing was for over one hundred days. We are told it is one of the very longest hearings since employment tribunals were set up.
The hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal at which Burton J presided lasted for 12 days. Neither party was represented before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Before the Employment Tribunal Mr Crofton appeared in person. Mr Yeboah was represented by Miss Monaghan of counsel who also represents him at today's application.
Having heard the submissions of Miss Monaghan and those of Mr Crofton who appears in person, in some detail, we have decided that permission to appeal should be given. The Employment Appeal Tribunal made many findings in relation to the Employment Tribunal and considered their decision to be perverse. The EAT decided that the appropriate course was that the matter should be remitted for rehearing by an employment tribunal. Having resolved to grant permission it would not be helpful, for reasons which I shall briefly give, to attempt to set out matters at great length.
The application was considered on paper by Mummery LJ who adjourned it to an oral hearing in open Court inter partes. Mummery LJ stated on 2nd July:
"This is a substantial case in which the EAT allowed the appeals against a finding of racial discrimination and ordered re-hearing by a different tribunal. I am not prepared to say at this stage that the proposed appeal has no real prospects of success. I direct a preliminary inter partes hearing in order to examine the possibility of restricting the scope of the appeals, if showed to have a real prospect of success."
We have attempted to give effect to the intentions of Mummery LJ and have explored with the help of the parties whether in the event of permission being given, directions or indications can be given or the grounds of appeal limited in a way which would help the Court hearing the appeal. I have come to the conclusion that it is not possible to do so in this case. While some of the leading points are discrete points, there is overlapping and there are some fundamental questions on the one hand as to the procedures followed by the Employment Tribunal, and on the other as to the procedures followed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. It is for that reason we give permission generally. We have been impressed today by the way Miss Monaghan on behalf of the applicant, and Mr Crofton in his submissions, have endeavoured to state succinctly the points they make, and they are both very much aware of the need to present to the Court submissions on distinct points at the same time keeping the general picture in mind.
I have been impressed by the argument that Mr Crofton has put forward in this respect, and I mention it to indicate why I come to the conclusion that Miss Monaghan has an arguable case. It appears to me that Mr Crofton also has one. He submits that there are such flaws in the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal that whatever flaws may be found in the reasoning of the Employment Tribunal, if any, would not obviate the need for a rehearing of the facts by an employment tribunal. Mr Crofton has submitted that the procedures before the Employment Tribunal were fundamentally flawed and points to the evidence they heard and did not hear and as to their reasoning and submits that a rehearing is necessary.
I am however persuaded by Miss Monaghan that there in a real prospect that, notwithstanding criticisms which may be made of the Employment Tribunal, its reasoning and conclusion can be upheld. If it is upheld, then of course there would be no rehearing.
The case does raise questions about the powers of the Employment Tribunal and also the powers of the EAT in relation to the findings of the Employment Tribunal. A point is also raised on the application by the Employment Tribunal of the tests in King v China Clay as to the approach the tribunal should take to evidence it hears when racial discrimination is alleged. Their approach did not commend itself to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Mr Crofton says, in order to advocate a conclusion that there must be a rehearing, that issue in itself would not be decisive of the appeal.
Both parties have submitted full skeleton arguments. This is not a case where I would feel able to give them further directions which may be helpful to the constitution hearing the appeal. One general issue which has loomed larger in the proceedings in light of the argument is the effect of the interlocutory applications and orders made at both those stages, and if on either side the interlocutory orders and the arguments that led to them are going to be relied on, then no doubt the constitution hearing the appeal would be assisted by appropriate chronologies and written statements of what happened and the points relied on.
If there are any further skeleton arguments on that or further points, it is agreed that they should not be required to be delivered before the end of the vacation and that is by 30th September. Mr Crofton is away for a substantial part of vacation and welcomes the fact that he would have the latter part of September in which to do the further work he needs to do. Any replies to the submissions supplied should be with the Court and the other party by 14th October. Both parties have indicated to me the potential scope of the proceedings. I would direct that three days be allowed for the hearing. However, I would also indicate to the listing officer that as far as the constitution is concerned, a fourth day should be allocated and used at their discretion either before or after the three days on such time that they should be allocate for the hearing.
(Appeal allowed; costs reserved to the re-hearing)
[2002] EWCA Civ 794
Lord Justice Brooke
Lord Justice Mummery and
Sir Christopher Slade
Case No: A2/2002/0081
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT
APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL
Ms Karon Monaghan (instructed by Heald Heffron) for the Appellant
Mr Bernard Crofton in person
INDEX
Heading | Para No. |
Lord Justice Mummery |
|
The Appeals: Introduction | 1 |
The Approach of the Court of Appeal | 9 |
General Background | 14 |
A. Application No 56617/94 presented on 6 October 1994 [Recruitment Fraud] | 21 |
B. Application No 69479/94 presented on 16 December 1994 [Sabbatical leave for Ms Warnock] | 42 |
C. Application No 23230/95 presented on 21 April 1995 [Investigation into immigration status and into criminal background (The Police List case)] | 47 |
Employment Tribunal Decisions: General Approach | 56 |
The Relevant Law | 58 |
The General Conclusions of the Employment Tribunal | 59 |
The General Conclusions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal | 61 |
A. Application No 56617/94 | 62 |
B. Application No 69479/94 | 65 |
C. Application No 23230/95 | 67 |
General Conclusions on this Appeal | 69 |
Particular Grounds of Appeals Except Perversity – |
|
A. Personal and vicarious liability for Race Discrimination in Employment Cases | 71 |
B. Comparator | 73 |
C. Burden of Proof | 76 |
D. Order of issues | 84 |
E. Conduct of Tribunal Hearing | 86 |
F. Defences of Public Policy and Privilege | 90 |
Perversity Ground – |
|
A. General | 92 |
B. The Sabbatical Leave for Ms Warnock Issue | 97 |
C. The Police List and Criminal Enquiry Issue | 105 |
D. The Recruitment Fraud Issue | 109 |
Result | 123 |
Sir Christopher Slade | 124 |
Lord Justice Brooke | 125 |
The Appeals: Introduction
This is an appeal by Mr Samuel Yeboah against the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal dated 16 May 2001. It allowed appeals by Mr Bernard...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Clark v Clark Construction Initiatives Ltd and another
-
The Governing Body of Clarence High School and Nugent Care Society v Zainab Boardman
...its own view. Having read the record of the internal appeal, I am satisfied that, applying the high threshold for perversity set out in Yeboah v Crofton [2002] EWCA Civ 794, at paragraphs 92�95, per Mummery LJ, no sensible tribunal could properly find that Mrs Boardman had confessed to wron......
-
Martin v Fujitsu Services (Engineering Services) Ltd
...any factual findings made by the ET could not be challenged upon appeal in the absence of perversity. HHJ Clarke referred to the case of Yeboah v Crofton [2002] IRLR 634, where it was said that a high threshold would need to be met before it could be concluded that the ET had acted perverse......
-
Boardman v Nugent Care Society and another
......Yeboah v Crofton [ 2002 ]IRLR 634 , CA applied. ( 3 ) That, in deciding whether to remit a case to a freshly constituted tribunal, relevant factors ......