Appeal Stages and Court Structure in Employment Disputes

By: Simon King | Posted: 23rd June 2009

The high-profile Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins [2006] legal case, where the Employment Tribunal's verdict of race discrimination led to the record £2.8 million compensation award, is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal next month (July 2009). The Court of Appeal hearing is limited to the issue of remedy only. The wrongdoing of race discrimination by Abbey National and Mr Hopkins seems to have been finalised by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which upheld the original Employment Tribunal's verdict that Abbey National and Mr Hopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race. The case serves to demonstrate the appeal stages and court structure in legal proceedings concerning employment rights disputes in the UK.



Abbey (the high street bank which is re-branding as Santander from 2010, and is part of the Banco Santander Group) employed Balbinder Chagger, who is of Indian origin. Mr Chagger earned about £100,000 per annum and reported into Nigel Hopkins. Abbey National dismissed Mr Chagger in 2006, apparently for reasons of redundancy.



If an employer and an employee cannot resolve their dispute over employment rights between themselves, then the dispute may be escalated to an Employment Tribunal for independent determination. Employment Tribunals will hear matters relating to unfair dismissal, redundancy payments and discrimination. Mr Chagger had tried to resolve the issues surrounding his dismissal directly with Abbey National and his manager (Mr Hopkins) through the company's internal grievance procedures. However, his issues were simply dismissed out of hand. Mr Chagger finally escalated the matter to the Employment Tribunal by initiating legal action on the grounds of race discrimination and unfair dismissal against both Abbey National and Mr Hopkins.



The Employment Tribunal concluded that Mr Chagger had been dismissed unfairly, and that Abbey National and Mr Hopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in respect of Mr Chagger's dismissal. The Employment Tribunal took the rare step of ordering Abbey National to reinstate Mr Chagger in order to remedy its wrongdoing. Abbey National, however, refused to comply with the Tribunal's order. Following Abbey National's failure to comply, the Tribunal eventually ordered Abbey National to pay Mr Chagger the record £2.8 million compensation for his loss on the basis that he had not been reinstated.



The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) will consider appeals from decisions made by Employment Tribunals. The appeal must be on a point of law, i.e. the appeal must identify errors in the legal reasoning of the Employment Tribunal's decision. The EAT will not re-examine issues of fact. Abbey National and Mr Hopkins appealed to the EAT against the Employment Tribunal's finding of race discrimination and against the £2.8 million compensation award.



After hearing and considering the appeals, the EAT upheld the original Employment Tribunal's finding that Abbey National and Mr Hopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in respect of Mr Chagger's dismissal. The EAT accepted Abbey National's appeal on the record £2.8 million compensation award and remitted (sent back) the compensation to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration on the basis of the likelihood of Mr Chagger leaving Abbey National's employment in any event.



The Court of Appeal will consider appeals from decisions made by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Again, the appeal must be on a point of law, i.e. the appeal must identify errors in the legal reasoning of the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision. The Court of Appeal will not re-examine issues of fact. The Chagger case is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal next month (July 2009) and the hearing is limited to the issue of remedy only, according to Nigel Porter of 11KBW set of chambers. This seems to suggest that Abbey National and Mr Hopkins have not appealed against the EAT's decision that they had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race; their wrongdoing of discrimination appears to have been finalised. It also seems to suggest that Mr Chagger has appealed against the EAT's decision to remit (send back) the compensation to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.



Appeals against the Court of Appeal's decisions may be made to the House of Lords. Appeals to the House of Lords require the Court of Appeal's permission and the Court of Appeal must also certify a question of general public importance to be decided by the House of Lords. Appeals to the House of Lords must be about points of law and not about issues of facts of the case.



For most legal cases in the UK, the House of Lords is the final stage of appeal. Some cases, however, may be permitted for appeal to the European Court of Justice, which has jurisdiction on matters of European Community law.





------



Abbey National & Hopkins v Chagger [2008] and Proving Race Discrimination in Employment
This article is free for republishing
Printed From: http://www.goinglegal.com/appeal-stages-and-court-structure-in-employment-disputes-948717.html
Back to the original article

Tags: wrongdoing, legal case, legal proceedings, court of appeal, indian origin, unfair dismissal, employment tribunal, race discrimination, compensation award, abbey national plc