Sandhu v Leicester City Council

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant initiated proceedings against his former employers, Company A, alleging racial discrimination. The complaint was originally presented to the Tribunal on 29 January 1992, concerning events between 31 October 1991 and 5 December 1991. The Appellant claimed discriminatory conduct by the Director of Leisure Services in relation to a grievance lodged against him by a subordinate, asserting less favourable treatment compared to white managers in similar circumstances. Additional proceedings for unfair constructive dismissal were filed on 1 December 1992, alleging dismissal on 31 August 1992, which Company A disputes.

The interlocutory appeal arises from a Tribunal order made on 6 January following the Appellant's failure to attend a hearing day. The Tribunal Chairman adjourned the hearing on condition that the Appellant provide a medical certificate confirming unfitness to attend by a specified deadline, failing which the application would be dismissed under the applicable procedural rules. A hearing was scheduled for 9 March to determine whether the case should be dismissed. The Appellant appealed against the order directing this hearing and other interlocutory matters.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in directing a hearing to consider dismissal of the Appellant's case due to failure to provide a medical certificate.
2. Whether the Tribunal should have discharged itself from further involvement due to alleged lack of impartiality.
3. Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing certain witness orders requested by the Appellant.
4. Whether the Tribunal erred in its handling of discovery requests made by Company A.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that the hearing to consider dismissal was premature and that the Tribunal lacked impartiality.
• The Appellant challenged the refusal of certain witness orders and argued for more extensive discovery.

Respondent's Arguments

• Company A disputed the allegations of racial discrimination and unfair dismissal.
• The Respondent maintained that the Tribunal's discretion was properly exercised and no error of law had occurred.
• Company A acknowledged practical difficulties in locating some documents but argued there was no legal basis to compel further discovery.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court held that the appeal against the order directing the hearing scheduled for 9 March was premature because the Appellant had not yet been dismissed from the proceedings. If the hearing takes place and the case is dismissed, the Appellant may then appeal. If the case proceeds, there would be no ground for appeal on these interlocutory matters. The court emphasized that it only hears appeals based on errors of law, not merely on disputed exercises of discretion unless such discretion was exercised erroneously in law.

Regarding the request for the Tribunal to recuse itself, the court found no substantial grounds to establish bias or lack of impartiality, and the refusal was a proper exercise of discretion. The court also found no legal error in the Tribunal's refusal of the majority of witness orders or in the handling of discovery, noting practical difficulties and that sufficient discovery had been ordered.

Overall, the court concluded that the interlocutory appeals failed due to prematurity and absence of legal error at this stage.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED all interlocutory appeals as premature and lacking demonstration of error of law.

The direct effect is that the scheduled hearing on 9 March will proceed to determine whether the Appellant's case should be dismissed. The Appellant may appeal any adverse decision following that hearing on proper legal grounds. No new legal precedent was established by this decision, and the interlocutory procedural rulings remain binding for the current stage of the proceedings.