Hobson v London Borough Of Hackney

Permission to appeal should be granted where the proposed appeal has a real prospect of success or another compelling reason for a hearing. At this stage, the court decides only whether reasonably arguable points justify a full appeal. Permission does not mean that an error of law has been established or that the appeal will succeed. Appeals to the Court of Appeal are confined to errors of law. A challenge to the legal characterisation of alleged discriminatory conduct, or to inadequate treatment of a discrimination complaint concerning a reference, may therefore justify permission.

An agency social worker brought sex discrimination and harassment claims against the London Borough of Hackney arising from her temporary work as a social worker. Other claims, including breach of contract and health and safety claims, were withdrawn. After a three-day hearing, the Employment Tribunal rejected the discrimination complaints. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed her appeal at a preliminary stage, finding no arguable error of law. The claimant applied in person for permission to appeal, abandoning complaints concerning bias, misconduct and the alleged denial of a fair hearing under Article 6. The central issue was whether her proposed challenge to the treatment of the sex discrimination and harassment claims disclosed reasonably arguable points of law.

1. Permission threshold. The court considered whether the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success or whether there was another compelling reason for the matter to be heard. The existence of reasonably arguable points of law was sufficient to justify permission at this preliminary stage.
2. Scope of proposed appeal. The proposed challenge raised arguable issues concerning the legal characterisation of individual acts attributed to the line manager, the significance given to the claimant’s alleged hypersensitivity in interpreting words and gestures, and the treatment of the complaint that an employment reference was discriminatory.
3. Limits of the permission decision. Granting permission did not determine that the tribunals had made errors of law. The proposed appeal required fuller consideration by a constituted court after hearing both sides. Appeals to the Court of Appeal were limited to errors of law. The claimant’s allegations of bias and misconduct were not pursued and, in any event, offered no realistic prospect of success. Permission was not granted on the alleged denial of a fair hearing under Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights.
4. Order. Permission to appeal was granted on the sex discrimination and harassment claim only. The matter was directed to be listed for one day.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission granted only on the sex discrimination and harassment claim: [2001] EWCA Civ 2007.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed at a preliminary stage on 6 June 2001; the tribunal found no arguable error of law in the Employment Tribunal’s decision.
• Employment Tribunal: After a three-day hearing in June 2000, the tribunal found that the claimant had not been discriminated against. Extended reasons were sent to the parties on 8 September 2001.