Uruakpa v Meat Hygiene Service

An appellate court should interfere with an employment tribunal’s case-management discretion only where the decision is plainly wrong, erroneous in principle, affected by irrelevant considerations, or reached without regard to relevant matters. Requests for the names and addresses of successful interview candidates in a discrimination claim will not ordinarily be ordered where extensive interview information and anonymised records are available. A claimant may establish discrimination through questions to the respondent’s witnesses and inferences from the available evidence. An application for permission to appeal must be refused where the proposed appeal has no real prospect of success.

The appellant brought a race discrimination claim after the respondent rejected her application for appointment as an official veterinary surgeon, referring to the need for a very good level of spoken English and relevant practical experience.

The Employment Tribunal refused to order further particulars, discovery and disclosure of the names and professional addresses of successful candidates. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed her appeal, holding that the requested information was unnecessary and amounted to a fishing expedition. The appellant sought permission to appeal, relying on the need to call the successful candidates and on the right to a fair hearing.

1. Permission refused. The proposed appeal had no real prospect of success.
2. The Employment Tribunal had case-management powers under Regulation 4 of the Employment Tribunal Regulations 1993 to require further particulars and discovery or information of documents, and under Regulation 13 to regulate its own procedure.
3. Those powers involved a discretionary judgment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal should interfere only where the tribunal’s decision was plainly wrong, erroneous in principle, took account of irrelevant matters, or failed to take account of relevant matters.
4. It was highly unlikely that the full court would interfere where the tribunal had already ordered extensive disclosure concerning the interviews. The names and addresses of successful candidates were ordinarily confidential and were not generally necessary for the fair determination of a race discrimination claim. Candidates could normally be identified by letters of the alphabet, preserving anonymity without preventing proper analysis of the interview questions and notes.
5. The appellant could test the respondent’s explanation by questioning its witnesses and inviting the tribunal to draw appropriate inferences from the available information. Disclosure of the successful candidates’ identities was therefore not essential to a fair hearing.

The application was refused. There was no order for costs, and the transcript was to be provided at public expense.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): application for permission to appeal refused.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal dismissed in relation to the refusal of further particulars and discovery.
• Employment Tribunal: refused to order further particulars and discovery.