Animadu v Mastercare Service and Distribution Limited

Permission to appeal from an Employment Appeal Tribunal decision requires a real prospect of success based on an error of law in the Employment Tribunal’s decision. The Court of Appeal has no general jurisdiction to reconsider the merits of an employment claim or to investigate alleged shortcomings in the tribunal system. Where the Employment Tribunal reached a conclusion that was legally open to it and was neither erroneous in law nor perverse, permission must be refused.

The applicant sought permission to appeal against the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s dismissal of his appeal from a preliminary Employment Tribunal decision. His claims concerned alleged victimisation and race discrimination arising from his former employment. The Employment Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the victimisation complaint, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal found no error of law or perversity in that decision. The central issue was whether the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success on a point of law.

1. Permission test. The applicant had to show both a real prospect of success and, as part of that assessment, an error of law in the Employment Tribunal’s decision.
2. Limited appellate jurisdiction. There is no general right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from an Employment Tribunal or Employment Appeal Tribunal decision. The Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction is confined to correcting errors of law. It could not revisit the merits of the applicant’s complaints, order a fresh investigation, or address his wider criticisms of the employment tribunal system.
3. Application to the case. The Employment Tribunal had considered the complaint and concluded that it had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had properly confined itself to examining the decision for error of law and perversity. The Court of Appeal agreed that no such error or perversity had been shown.
4. The applicant’s arguments concerning alleged race discrimination, victimisation, evidential matters, contractual issues and the operation of the Race Relations Act 1976 could not enlarge the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction in this permission application.
5. There was no real prospect of success in the proposed appeal. Permission to appeal was refused.

• Employment Tribunal, London Central: at a hearing on 26 July 2000, dismissed the victimisation claims for want of jurisdiction; extended reasons were sent on 17 August 2000.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: on 9 March 2001, dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or perversity.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused permission to appeal on 4 July 2001.