December 2018
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Luvualu and Others v Federal Mogul Sintered Products Ltd and Another; EAT 19 Mar 2015

References: [2015] UKEAT 0154_14_1903
Links: Bailii
Coram: Supperstone J
EAT Practice and Procedure: Bias, Misconduct and Procedural Irregularity
The Appellants were contract workers working for the First Respondent through an agency which later became the Second Respondent. It is accepted that they were employees of the Second Respondent and that they were dismissed. They brought claims against the First Respondent relating to direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation and against the Second Respondent relating to direct race discrimination and victimisation only.
An email chain was omitted from the ET bundle. An email from Mr Green, a night shift supervisor, described the events that led to the Appellants leaving site including accusations made by one of the Appellants that Mr Green did not like black men and had no respect for black men, which was repeated later when the Appellants said they were going home. The emails before the ET did not show that this email had been forwarded to Mr Coleman, formerly a manager with the First Respondent responsible for its contract with the Second Respondent. The significance of the omission of the evidence of that email having been forwarded to him is that in his evidence he denied he knew of allegations of racism at the material time.
The Appellants’ primary case was that the ET Judge refused to accede to the request by their representative to include the combined emails in the bundle prior to the ET hearing without giving a reason for his refusal contrary to ECHR Articles 6(1) and 14.
The EAT was satisfied that no proper application was made to the ET to admit the email chain. If a proper application had been made the ET would have appreciated the significance of the omission and would have been bound to admit the evidence or provide a proper explanation for not doing so. There was no procedural impropriety on the ET’s part.
Last Update: 02-Oct-15 Ref: 552824

Leave a Reply