Appeal No.	 EAT/449/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 29 November 1996

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
SIR GAVIN LAIRD CBE
MR J A SCOULLER

MR J CURRAN	APPELLANT

LONDON UNDERGROUND LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	IN PERSON	

	JUDGE D M LEVY QC:	Mr James Curran applied to an Industrial Tribunal claiming certain relief.  There was a hearing before an Industrial Tribunal at London (South) on 27 October 1995 and on 14, 15 and 16 February 1996.

	At the end of the hearing, the decision, which was unanimous, was that Mr Curran had not been dismissed; that his case as formulated by him contained no question requiring a reference to the European Court of Justice under article 177 of the Treaty of Rome; that the Applicant’s (the Appellant here) application on 15 February 1996 to add further comparators, was out of time under section 68 of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Tribunal found that it would not be just and equitable to allow the Applicant to amend his pleading to add such a claim.  It further found that the Applicant’s claim of racial discrimination was not well-founded and failed.

	In the circumstances, his application was dismissed.  Extended Reasons, numbering some 54 paragraphs, were sent to the parties on 12 March 1996.  

	Against that decision, Mr Curran wishes to appeal.  His Notice of Appeal is dated 23 April 1996.  What is stated in his Notice of Appeal is that first the Tribunal erred in law in deciding that he was not dismissed and secondly, the case presented to the Tribunal did require a reference to the European Court of Justice under Article 177 of the Treaty of Rome.  Mr Curran has developed his Notice of Appeal in skeleton arguments and an oral address which he has presented to us this morning.

	As to the first ground of appeal that the Tribunal erred in law to decide that he was not dismissed, we have looked carefully through the Extended Reasons of the Industrial Tribunal and from the facts which were found there, it is clear to us that he was not dismissed for the reasons which the Industrial Tribunal gave.  

	The second ground of appeal was also dealt with in the Tribunal’s Extended Reasons.  We see no error in the law contained on that subject and in his written documentation and his oral submissions, Mr Curran has not persuaded us otherwise.  It is apparent to us that he wishes on appeal to re-litigate questions of fact which were found against him by the Tribunal below.  That is not something on which appeals can be allowed to go ahead where it is apparent from the Extended Reasons that the facts as found were grounded on evidence before the Industrial Tribunal.  

	In the circumstances, we see no point of law arguable, no error in the decision below and we think it right therefore to dismiss Mr Curran’s appeal at this stage.