Appeal No.	EAT/1119/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 8 February 2001

Before
MR COMMISSIONER HOWELL QC
MR J HOUGHAM CBE
MRS M T PROSSER

MISS L E SHAW	APPELLANT

(1) GEARHOUSE LTD (FORMERLY ONVIEW PRESENTATION SERVICES LTD) 
(2) V HOGGARD (3) TINA BROOKS (4) S DODD
(5) MICHAEL HUGHES (6) MARK HUGHES	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR A G J BOND
(Solicitor)
Messrs Hadens
Solicitors
Leicester Buildings
Bridge Street
Walsall
West Midlands
WS1 1EL	

MR COMMISSIONER HOWELL QC:	

1	In this appeal which is before us today for preliminary hearing Miss Laura Elizabeth Shaw seeks to have set aside, as perversely low, the awards of compensation for injury to feelings made by the Birmingham Employment Tribunal after a hearing on three days in July 2000, set out in Extended Reasons sent to the parties on 8 August 2000, which are before us at pages 4 to 28 of the appeal file.

2	The proceedings before the Tribunal were a complaint by Miss Shaw against her employers, Gearhouse Ltd and five of their employees, of a particularly bad case of sexual harassment and discrimination culminating in her constructive dismissal.  This the Tribunal found to have been proved, and there is no appeal against the findings of the Tribunal that the case of sexual discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal had been made out.

3	The Tribunal having made those findings made basic and compensatory awards for the dismissal which are not disputed, and awards of compensation totalling £3,600 for unlawful discrimination divided up as to £3000 against the First Respondent, the employer, sums of £100 against four of the employees and £200 against a fifth.  Those awards are alleged in Miss Shaw’s Notice of Appeal to be perversely low, having regard to the actual facts of the case where it appears that the sexual harassment she had suffered had included a serious physical assault.

4	We are satisfied, having considered the papers and the Notice of Appeal and Skeleton Argument helpfully put before us by Mr Bond on Miss Shaw’s behalf, that there is a clear issue to warrant consideration by a full hearing of this Employment Appeal Tribunal on whether the Employment Tribunal misdirected themselves in making such a low award in the circumstances of this case and we accordingly direct that the case should go forward for a full hearing.

5	The Employment Tribunal referred to the general guidelines laid down in Armitage v Johnson [1997] IRLR 162, but the arguable issue it appears to us is whether the actual awards they made correctly reflected the approach which, as a matter of law, a Tribunal should in circumstances such as this case adopt to the issue of quantum.

6	We accordingly direct a full hearing of this appeal.  Listing Category - I am inclined to think that this ought to be Category B because the principles applicable on whether, in these kind of circumstances, a £100 award is sufficient – may have implications in other cases.  So we will direct Listing Category B.

[The Court heard the Appellant’s Solicitor on the directions to be given]

7	We give a direction that skeleton arguments should be exchanged between the parties and lodged with the Employment Appeal Tribunal office not later than 14 days before the date fixed for the full hearing and, in the circumstances, we also direct that the Tribunal Chairman should be asked to provide a transcript of his notes of the submissions of both sides on the issue of the quantum of the award to be made in this case and, in particular, the issue of whether there should be any aggravated element in the damages awarded.  Estimated length of the appeal hearing half a day but the parties are to notify the EAT listing authorities if more time is considered to be needed.