McCue v NTL Group Ltd [2000] UKEAT 1386_99_0507 (5 July 2000)

JUDGMENT PRELIMINARY HEARING © Copyright 2000 APPEARANCES For the Appellant JOHN BOWERS appearing under Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme JUDGE WILCOX: This is an appeal against a decision of the Tribunal held on 21 September 1999. In fact it was the Chairman sitting on his own and it relates to a jurisdiction point. The Tribunal concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the Applicants' claims for race and sex discrimination, since it was contemplated that the Applicant's work would be wholly or mainly outside Great Britain, namely in Northern Ireland, the applications therefore failed and were dismissed. The Appellant is from Northern Ireland – I will not categorise his description of nationality and race beyond that. He does so himself in extensive documentation and we have read and considered that. He has a strong belief that he cannot for various reasons have a fair trial of matters, relating to his employment in Northern Ireland. We merely note the strength of his feeling we observe that there is a great deal in his documentary submissions that seek to justify that belief. We go no further than that. He seeks to have a Tribunal hearing as to his complaint in England and Wales or in Scotland, anywhere it would appear outside Northern Ireland. We have been greatly assisted by the submissions of Mr Bowers on behalf of the Appellant. Essentially, there are two matters of fact that the Tribunal Chairman was called upon to consider. Whether the employment involved work that was wholly or mainly in Northern Ireland or whether it would be without, or the extent to which it might be outside Northern Ireland. There are findings of fact in relation to that, that on the face of them seem to support the conclusion that the employment would have been within the region or territory of Northern Ireland. There was material upon which a Tribunal, properly directing itself could have come to that conclusion. The third matter of complaint relates to the fact that the Chairman sat on his own and had therefore, in coming to a conclusion as to jurisdiction to consider, essentially, matters of fact and matters of law. We realise that this is a matter of discretion. We have some concern when it comes to issues such as these going to basic jurisdiction and going to findings of fact, whether a Chairman, considering whether he ought to sit upon his own or not, to have considered sitting with, what is essentially, an industrial jury in the investigation of the factual matrix for his finding of law. Subsequently, this is a case which is perhaps towards the borderline but we feel, unanimously, that this is a case that should go forward for a full hearing, principally on the ground, as to whether the Chairman should have sat alone in a case like this. I have made reference to the matters of fact. It seems to us that if we were merely to let this matter go forward on the exercise of discretion alone, that would be a sterile exercise. We therefore permit the matters of fact, mentioned by Mr Bowers and of course for his submissions to go forward also to be considered by a full Tribunal. We think these matters are just arguable. It is right that I should give a note of caution, so far as the Appellant is concerned; he must not be encouraged, merely because we have given a preliminary leave for the matter to be further looked at. We do not necessarily think that there is any great merit in the submissions ultimately. But we permit the matter to go to a full Tribunal upon those grounds. There was a peripheral matter as to directions. We think that it is not necessary to give directions at this stage, in relation to matters of convictions or such like. 3 hours, category B, skeleton arguments 14 days before the hearing and a full chronology if you please. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII