Otobor v Croydon College & Ors

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to appeals raising questions of law. It must not rehear factual disputes or revisit credibility findings. Grounds that merely reargue the facts, allege perjury or bias without particularised evidence, or challenge factual conclusions without identifying an error of law disclose no arguable appeal. Complaints about an Employment Tribunal’s original decision belong in the appeal process rather than reconsideration, but they must be properly particularised. Where the proposed appeal has no real prospect of success, permission may be refused.

The applicant, a teacher placed at Croydon College through employment agencies, brought claims alleging age and race discrimination after he was not appointed to a full-time lecturing post and was not provided with certain references. The Employment Tribunal dismissed the surviving race discrimination claim after the Employment Appeal Tribunal had allowed the earlier appeal in part. The Tribunal also refused reconsideration. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed a further appeal, finding no error of law and no evidence of bias. The applicant renewed his application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The central issue was whether his grounds disclosed an arguable error of law with a real prospect of success.

Decision

Permission to appeal refused.

1. The applicant’s case was essentially a challenge to the Employment Tribunal’s factual findings and assessments of credibility. The Tribunal had rejected his account of a conversation concerning a sickness-cover appointment and found that the successful candidate was an existing employee. It had also found no racial basis for the failures to provide references. Those matters involved factual evaluation and did not, without more, establish an error of law.
2. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had been correct to dismiss the appeal. Its jurisdiction is limited to appeals from the Employment Tribunal on questions of law. It is not a forum for rehearing the facts or rearguing the entire case. The applicant had not identified any particular error of law with a reasonable prospect of success.
3. The Employment Tribunal judge had also been correct to state that complaints about the original decision were matters for an appeal rather than reconsideration. However, the grounds subsequently advanced did not particularise those complaints or disclose arguable appellate grounds.
4. The assertions that the respondents had committed perjury, that the tribunals were biased, and that the respondents had conceded discrimination were unsupported or mistaken. The respondents had conceded only that there were issues to be tried, not that discrimination had occurred.

The renewed application therefore had no real prospect of success, and leave to appeal was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dame Janet Smith considered the application on paper. On renewal, Lord Justice Lloyd Jones refused permission to appeal.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal: An earlier appeal was allowed in part on 6 September 2013, directing that the race-discrimination allegations proceed. Following the Employment Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim, the EAT dismissed the subsequent appeal on 28 November 2014 as totally without merit.
3. Employment Tribunal: The claim was initially struck out on 8 August 2012. The surviving race-discrimination claim was dismissed on 16 July 2014, and reconsideration was refused on 22 September 2014.