Appeal No.	 EAT/406/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 23 July 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MRS J M MATTHIAS
MR S M SPRINGER MBE

MS A MCDONALD	APPELLANT

LONDON BOROUGH OF EALING	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR S BARBER
(Representative)
Regional Officer
UNISON
1st Floor, Congress House
Great Russell Street
London  WC1B 3LS	

	JUDGE LEVY:	Following a very long hearing at London North an Employment Tribunal unanimously decided that a number of complaints made by Ms A McDonald, the Appellant, were not well founded and each complaint was dismissed.  The judgment runs to some 60 pages.  From that appeal, Mr Barber, who appeared for the Appellant at the Employment Tribunal, submitted on her behalf a Notice of Appeal running to some 41 pages.  

1	At the preliminary ex-parte hearing today, Mr Barber has appeared before us.  He has agreed that only two matters which should go forward to appeal, each of which we think is arguable, are these and to withdraw all other matters raised in the Notice of Appeal.  The two matters are these:  first, on the question of comparators, the question on which he says the Tribunal erred is in respect of disability discrimination.  He wishes to argue that the tribunal erred in law by taking account of comparators.  Secondly, on victimisation he agrees that the only question on which the Appellant wishes to appeal is this; that the question of victimisation was wrongly addressed by the Tribunal by way of motive rather than, as a recent decision of the House of Lords shows, by looking at the subjective impact on the Appellant’s mind.  

2	We will give leave to Mr Barber to put in a substituted Notice of Appeal within 14 days, setting out these two grounds; the Respondents answer should follow thereafter.  Category B, estimated time of appeal half a day to a day.

3	We have pointed out to Mr Barber that allowing the points to go forward to a full hearing does not mean that this panel necessarily thinks they are likely to succeed and that it will be open to the Respondent to this appeal, in the event that it is unsuccessful, to apply for an order for costs.