D'Cruz v. Inland Revenue

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS At the Tribunal On 9 October 2001 Before

and she then sets out nine reasons why she alleges that has been the case, which I do not think it necessary to read for the purposes of this judgment. She said that she had:

The hearing before the Tribunal lasted four days, with a further day in Chambers for consideration, and it is plain from the Reasons that the Appellant's complaints were investigated in considerable detail. The unanimous Decision of the Tribunal was that the complaints of direct racial discrimination and racial discrimination by way of victimisation both failed.

We are quite clear and I think, in fairness, it was accepted by Mrs D'Cruz in argument, that the only point for the Employment Appeal Tribunal today was whether or not Mr Barnaby should have been called as a witness; and whether or not the failure of the Tribunal to ensure that he was called, represented an error of law, depriving her of the opportunity to cross-examine and thus put forward a material part of her case.

There was then discussion about when those submissions should be made. According to Mr�Carr, the Appellant raised no objection to the Tribunal's conclusion that they would not be helped by hearing from Mr Barnaby. Furthermore, he says she made no request for a Witness Order to be made against him, in order that she might herself call him to give evidence. On that basis, Mr Carr submits that the fact that the Appellant did not have an opportunity to cross-examine Mr Barnaby does not give rise to any arguable point of law.