Ajayi v. Hammersmith & Fulham Council for Racial Equality & Anor [2000] UKEAT 0148_00_1104 (11 April 2000)

Ajayi v. Hammersmith & Fulham Council for Racial Equality & Anor [2000] UKEAT 0148_00_1104 (11 April 2000)

The Tribunal Chairman did not err in law in refusing a broad order for discovery because the requests were largely irrelevant and oppressive; the Tribunal exercised its discretion properly under the applicable rules. The County Court order did not bind the Tribunal, and allegations of bias were not properly raised by affidavit.

Citation
[2000] UKEAT 0148_00_1104
Parties
Appellant: Christine Ajayi; 1st Respondent: Hammersmith & Fulham Council for Racial Equality; 2nd Respondent: Mr Timmerman; 3rd Respondent: Mr Kadoo
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
11 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Appeal (employment Tribunal) / Appeal Against Refusal of Discovery Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except for recommendation regarding panel composition
Legal Topics
Discovery, Gender Discrimination, Racial Discrimination, Constructive Dismissal, Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Discrimination Law Discovery Gender Discrimination Racial Discrimination Constructive Dismissal Tribunal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christine Ajayi

Appellant

Hammersmith & Fulham Council for Racial Equality

1st Respondent

Mr Timmerman

2nd Respondent

Mr Kadoo

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Appeal (employment Tribunal) / Appeal Against Refusal of Discovery Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in refusing a broad order for discovery in a discrimination case
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal was bound by a County Court order regarding document production
  3. 3 Whether allegations of bias against the Tribunal Chairman were properly raised

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal Chairman did not err in law in refusing a broad order for discovery because the requests were largely irrelevant and oppressive; the Tribunal exercised its discretion properly under the applicable rules. The County Court order did not bind the Tribunal, and allegations of bias were not properly raised by affidavit.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except for recommendation regarding panel composition

Orders

  • Appeal against refusal of discovery dismissed
  • Recommendation that Mr Flint not sit on the panel for the substantive hearing