Inland Revenue & Anor v. Morgan

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS At the Tribunal Judgment delivered on 6 February 2002 Before

(1) THE COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE (2) MR B CLEAVE CB APPELLANT MISS M M MORGAN RESPONDENT

Both the CIR and Mr Cleave appealed. Before us now we have an amended conjoined appeal of the CIR and Mr Cleave (for whom Mr Hand Q.C. leads Mr Cavanagh Q.C.) and a cross-appeal from Miss Morgan (for whom Ms Monaghan appears). Mr Cavanagh also appeared below, where Miss Morgan had been in person. As the argument before us has fallen out it can usefully be divided into 6 headings namely:-

Sub-section (7) provides that any act extending over a period should be treated as done at the end of that period.

There is force in Mr Hand's criticism that such unwillingness of the Tribunal deprived the CIR of a main line of defence to Miss Morgan's case so far as it was based on a few white comparators, namely that Miss Morgan's progress was dictated not by colour but by fairly-assessed comparative merit. It would have been preferable if that defence (involving assessments of some 7 lawyers) had been more fully dealt with but the fact that it was not does not deny force to the Tribunal's response to Miss Morgan's alternative or additional form of complaint based on statistics.