[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Cunningham v Aurora Kendrick James Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 52 (17 January 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/52.html Cite as: [2013] EWCA Civ 52

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE CLARK)
UKEAT/0055/12/MAA

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		17th January 2013

Lord Justice Rimer:

1. This was to have been the hearing of a renewed application for permission to appeal. The applicant is Robert Cunningham, who is conducting his proposed appeal in person. The respondent is his former employer, Aurora Kendrick  James  Limited, and the order that the applicant wishes to challenge is that of HHJ Clark made in the Employment  Appeal  Tribunal on 7 June 2012. Mummery LJ refused permission to appeal against that order on the papers on 29 October 2012 on the basis that in his view there was no reasonably arguable error of law by either the Employment Tribunal or the Employment Appeal Tribunal; and this hearing, as I say, was due to be Mr Cunningham's renewed oral application for permission.
2. In the event Mr Cunningham has not attended before me today. I have to say that that does not surprise me and I thought it quite likely that he would not be attending. That is because Mr Cunningham is not merely disadvantaged in his conduct of these proceedings by the fact that he is not a lawyer, he also suffers, as he has since childhood, from a significant hearing disability and also from other health disorders which he has explained in the material before me as having been diagnosed as severe post traumatic stress disorder, severe depression, severe irritable bowel syndrome and recurrent renal calculi.
3. He has in support of this application prepared a very full written statement, which I have of course read, and in preparation for the hearing he made representations to the court with a view, so far as practicable, to special arrangements being made to assist him in the presentation of his case having regard to his physical disadvantages. I have no doubt that he intended to be here if he could but in the event a message by email was received by the court early this morning to the effect that the applicant was taken seriously ill in the night and is unable to attend court today. I have no hesitation in accepting that that is a genuine statement and I take the view that the right course is to adjourn this application to the earliest convenient date when Mr Cunningham is able to attend.
4. As I have spent a considerable number of hours reading into the papers in the case, it appears to me to make sense that I should retain the application if that is practicable since it would be a waste of judicial resources for another judge on the adjourned application to have to read into the case. I am not, however, going to make an order that prevents the matter being released to another judge if the convenience of the court's listing arrangements should so require.
5. I shall therefore adjourn this application to a date to be fixed at the earliest convenient date. I shall retain the application if practicable, but that is without prejudice to the listing officer's liberty to release the case to another Lord Justice if it is convenient to do so.

Order: Application adjourned