Jiad v BBC World Service & Ors

Permission to appeal from an employment tribunal decision should be refused where the proposed appeal has no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason justifies a hearing. An appeal from an employment tribunal lies only on a question of law. It cannot be used to reopen factual findings, assess witness credibility afresh or challenge reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. Reasons need not address every evidential detail, provided they enable the unsuccessful party to understand why the claim failed. A costs decision will not be disturbed absent an error of principle or a decision that was plainly wrong.

The applicant, a BBC producer, brought claims of race discrimination and victimisation arising from his employment in the Arabic Service. An Employment Tribunal dismissed the claims after a seven-day hearing. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed his appeal after a three-day hearing and ordered him to pay 50 per cent of the respondents’ costs, subject to a maximum of £9,250.

The applicant sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, alleging errors of law, inadequate reasons, perversity, bias and an oppressive costs order. The central issues were whether any arguable question of law arose from the Employment Tribunal’s decision and whether the costs discretion disclosed an appealable error.

1. Application refused. The proposed appeal had no real prospect of success, and there was no other compelling reason for granting permission.
2. Allegations concerning the conduct or alleged bias of the Employment Appeal Tribunal did not raise a question of law arising from the Employment Tribunal’s decision. They were therefore irrelevant to the permission application.
3. Appeals from employment tribunals are confined to questions of law. The Employment Tribunal is the tribunal responsible for hearing and assessing the evidence. Its findings of fact, evaluation of credibility and reasonable factual inferences cannot be reopened on appeal merely because the unsuccessful party disagrees with them.
4. The complaints concerning comparators, acting-up arrangements, bonuses, duty trips, training, appraisal objectives, documents and credibility disclosed no arguable error of law. The Tribunal was entitled to reject the alleged discrimination and victimisation on the evidence.
5. The Tribunal’s reasons satisfied the principle stated in the case of Meek. Although some matters could have been expressed more fully, the reasons gave the applicant sufficient understanding of the basis on which he failed.
6. The costs order was within the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s discretion. It was not shown to result from an error of principle or to be plainly wrong.

Order: application refused with costs assessed at £800.

• Employment Tribunal: dismissed the applicant’s claims for race discrimination and victimisation after a seven-day hearing; extended reasons were registered on 27 July 1999.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the applicant’s appeal after a three-day hearing and ordered payment of 50 per cent of the respondents’ costs, subject to a maximum of £9,250.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused permission to appeal and ordered costs of £800: [2002] EWCA Civ 956.