![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Afolayan v. Star Texaco Ltd & Anor [2002] UKEAT 1088_00_1401 (14 January 2002) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1088_00_1401.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1088__1401, [2002] UKEAT 1088_00_1401 |
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal | |
On 10 December 2001 | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
LORD DAVIES OF COITY CBE
MRS D M PALMER
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
For the Appellant | MR ANTHONY OKAI (Of Counsel) Messrs Ormerods Solicitors Green Dragon House 64-70 High Street Croydon CRO 9XN |
For the Respondent | MR SMAIR SOOR (Of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Cooper Whiteman Solicitors 54 Bloomsbury Way London WC1A 2SA |
JUDGE PETER CLARK
Background
The Appeal
(1) Did the Employment Tribunal reach its conclusion that the 1st Respondent was improperly joined as a party to the proceedings without giving the Appellant a proper opportunity to deal with the point in evidence and argument?
(2) Did the Employment Tribunal give inadequate reasons for its conclusion as to the credibility of the witnesses, particularly the Appellant, in the case?
(3) Did the Employment Tribunal make perverse findings in relation to the claims brought against the 2nd Respondent?
(4) Did the Employment Tribunal err in law in concluding that certain of the Appellant's claims were time-barred?
(5) Did the Employment Tribunal err in the respect alleged in ground 10 of the Appellant's grounds of appeal?
We shall deal with each of those questions in turn.
The First Issue
The Second Issue
The Third Issue
The Fourth Issue
The Fifth Issue
"10. The discrimination and victimisation became even most prominent when the appellant applied for the position of site manager backed by a very strong appraisal and very high recommendation in 1999 by his site manager at Chelsea. the appellant never received an acknowledgement to his application. This evidence was not even mentioned by the Tribunal in their decision."
Conclusion