Thames Valley Police v Younas

At a preliminary hearing under the Practice Direction (Employment Appeal Procedure) 1996, the Employment Appeal Tribunal must identify which alleged points of law merit a full appeal. Any ground dismissed at that stage must be expressly identified and supported by reasons. Where the judgment states that the appeal will proceed to a full hearing, silence about a ground does not amount to its dismissal. A later administrative clarification cannot alter the judgment. An amendment is unnecessary where the originating application already raises the relevant claim and later particulars merely provide detail. If an amendment is required, it should ordinarily be allowed where no prejudice is shown and limitation or staleness issues remain open.

Mohammad Younas, a serving police officer, brought proceedings alleging unfair dismissal, racial discrimination and harassment. The Employment Tribunal dismissed the unfair-dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and refused permission to amend the application to pursue discrimination and harassment claims. The first Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal to proceed, but its judgment was ambiguous about whether the amendment ground had been dismissed. The second Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the ground had not been dismissed, treated the Human Rights Act ground as without merit, and allowed the discrimination and harassment issue to proceed. The appeal concerned the proper construction of the first EAT’s order and whether the amendment decision was legally wrong.

Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Judge delivered the judgment, with Lord Justices Potter and Henry agreeing. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s agreed costs of £4,448.12.

1. Preliminary sift. The purpose of a preliminary hearing under paragraph 14 of the Practice Direction (Employment Appeal Procedure) 1996 is to sift out bad points of law, non-points of law and factual issues presented as points of law. The Employment Appeal Tribunal must determine which grounds proceed to a full hearing and which do not. A dismissed ground must be identified and reasons, however brief, must be given. If all grounds proceed, the judgment should say so expressly.
2. Construction of the first EAT’s judgment. The first EAT stated that the appeal should proceed to a full hearing but did not say that ground 6(b) was dismissed, unarguable or excluded. It gave no reasons for rejecting that ground. The proper and fair conclusion was therefore that ground 6(b) had not been dismissed. The later letter from the Registrar could not undermine the terms of the judgment.
3. Clarification and res judicata. The court rejected the submission that the issue was governed by res judicata. By the time the matter reached the second EAT, it was too late to reconvene the first EAT. The later tribunal had to determine the effect of the judgment from its language.
4. Amendment. The original application identified racial discrimination and harassment during the respondent’s service, separately from the complaint about inadequate investigation. The later particulars supplied detail rather than introducing a new claim, so no amendment was necessary. In any event, an amendment should have been allowed because no prejudice to the Chief Constable was shown, while arguments about time and staleness remained open.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). By [2001] EWCA Civ 1936, dismissed the appeal from the second Employment Appeal Tribunal and ordered payment of costs.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal, second hearing. Held that the first EAT had not dismissed ground 6(b), treated the Human Rights Act ground as without merit, and remitted the discrimination and harassment issue for rehearing before a different tribunal.
3. Employment Appeal Tribunal, first hearing. On 14 November 2000, allowed the appeal to proceed to a full hearing, but expressed its decision ambiguously.
4. Employment Tribunal. On 27 April 2000, dismissed the unfair-dismissal claim and refused permission to amend the originating application to pursue additional racial discrimination and harassment claims.