Kalu v London Borough Of Hackney

An appeal from an Employment Tribunal through the Employment Appeal Tribunal to the Court of Appeal lies only on a point of law. Disagreement with factual findings or witness credibility does not justify permission to appeal unless an arguable legal defect is identified. Detailed, reasoned findings by the Employment Tribunal are not rendered unfair merely because one party’s evidence was rejected. Allegations of corruption or procedural unfairness must have a proper evidential and legal basis. The same principle applies to challenges concerning review applications and amendments.

Anthony Kalu, employed by the London Borough of Hackney as deputy superintendent of parking control, brought complaints of race and sex discrimination, victimisation and unauthorised deductions from wages. He also raised allegations concerning fraud, corruption, dismissal, TUPE regulations and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Employment Tribunal dismissed the complaints. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed appeals concerning the substantive decision, the refusal to review the decision and the refusal to permit amendment. Mr Kalu applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. The central issue was whether any of the proposed appeals disclosed an arguable point of law.

Lord Justice Pill, sitting alone, refused permission to appeal in respect of all three appeal bundles.

1. The appellate scheme permits an appeal from the Employment Tribunal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and thereafter to the Court of Appeal, only on a point of law. Findings of fact, including the assessment of witness credibility, are matters for the Employment Tribunal.
2. The Employment Tribunal had carefully identified the issues, summarised the evidence and reached reasoned conclusions in a detailed decision extending to 67 paragraphs. The Court of Appeal could identify no basis for arguing that the findings were unfairly reached, or that alleged corruption had affected the decisions. A disagreement with the tribunal’s evaluation of the evidence did not disclose an arguable error of law, nor justify reversal or a further hearing.
3. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to decide the applications for review and amendment as it did. The Employment Appeal Tribunal was correct to conclude that those decisions disclosed no arguable ground for reversal.
4. Complaints not determined by the Employment Tribunal could not provide a basis for an appeal confined to points of law. The application was therefore dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 5 February 2002, Lord Justice Pill refused permission to appeal in all three appeal bundles: [2002] EWCA Civ 139.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal: On 26 October 2001, dismissed appeals concerning the substantive Employment Tribunal decision and the refusals to review and amend it.
3. Employment Tribunal: Dismissed the complaints of race and sex discrimination, victimisation and unauthorised deductions from wages.