An employment tribunal (ET) did not show bias in dismissing a claim brought by a black barrister against his chambers, an appeal tribunal has ruled.
Not only were the criticisms made by Daniel Matovu unfounded, said Mr Justice Linden in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), but also the ET could have “gone further” if it really had been biased against him.
In 2020, the ET rejected Mr Matovu’s race discrimination and victimisation claim against 2 Temple Gardens Chambers (2TGC), which expelled him after a complaint by its senior clerk.
It found that Mr Matovu failed to establish any good reason for feeling aggrieved over a series of disputes with the set between 2013 and 2019.
He appealed on the grounds of procedural unfairness, apparent bias and errors of law/approach.
The EAT noted that, while Mr Matovu “placed emphasis on his description of himself as a ‘litigant in person’”, when it came to asserting what was normal practice in employment tribunal litigation, he relied on being a barrister with more than 35 years’ experience, who specialised in employment and discrimination law.
The EAT said it nonetheless allowed Mr Matovu “to adopt a disparaging and sarcastic tone” in relation to certain employment judges as well as 2TGC’s counsel, “and effectively to make a number of allegations of bad faith because, we felt, he should not be prevented from putting his case in the way that he wished to, even if his allegations of bad faith appeared groundless”.
He also asserted that the ET was against him from the beginning, and that he was subjected to a “court lynching”.
Linden J, sitting with two lay members, said: “Insofar as he was referring to his applications in the first two days of the hearing, the true position is that those applications were rightly rejected on their merits.
“Indeed, his attempts to get the hearing postponed and his application for a different tribunal were hopeless, as he knew or ought to have known… We found nothing in the evidence about what happened at the hearing which was capable of justifying Mr Matovu’s comparison with a lynching.”
The EAT dismissed the barrister’s procedural complaints, such as that the ET guillotined his cross-examination of 2TGC’s principal witness.
“The ET was entitled to expect the parties to assist it in completing the hearing within the allocated time, pursuant to their duty to the court to assist in achieving the overriding objective.”
If Mr Matovu had needed a little more time, “it was incumbent on him to say so”.
The EAT said it was “satisfied that the hearing before the ET was fair” and rejected the contention that the ET’s management of certain procedural matters indicated bias.
The EAT went on to reject Mr Matovu’s multiple attacks on the ET’s approach to the law and dismissed his appeal.
Source: Legal Futures
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
