[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Watimani v. CRM Ltd & Ors [2001] UKEAT 1022_00_1611 (16 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1022_00_1611.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 1022__1611, [2001] UKEAT 1022_00_1611

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Appellant


 


JUDGE A WILKIE QC

1. This is an appeal by Miss Watimani against the Decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at Bedford on 13 and 14 April and 20 and 21 June 2000 which rejected her application that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of her race by the four named Respondents. That Decision was recorded in a full Extended Statement of Reasons sent to the parties on 5 July 2000.
2. On 15 August 2000, a Notice of Appeal was lodged on behalf of Miss Watimani by the Commission for Racial Equality which, in terms, appealed against the Decision on the grounds that the Decision was perverse and also that there were certain errors of law.
3. On 16 August, the Registrar of the EAT wrote to the CRE informing it that Miss Watimani's appeal would be set down for a preliminary hearing. On 6 October the CRE wrote to the Registrar requesting that the case be stayed, pending clarification as to whether or not the appeal would be pursued. The author informed the EAT that the CRE had decided not to fund the appeal and the issue was whether the Appellant was proposing to continue with the appeal herself or with other representatives. It was recorded that the Applicant had gone abroad to France and had not responded to recent correspondence. The CRE indicated that it would make one further attempt to contact the Applicant, via relatives in the UK, but was, responsibly, keeping the EAT informed.
4. On 10 October the Registrar replied to the CRE that she had directed that the appeal be stayed, pending clarification whether or not the appeal is to be pursued, and asked to be kept informed. There was a follow-up letter from the EAT on 7 November enquiring what the position was and on 8 November the CRE replied to that letter, saying that they had obtained a contact address for the Applicant and written to her asking for her specific instructions by a letter dated 30 October. They had asked her to respond by no later than 20 November.
5. On 22 November the CRE wrote to the EAT confirming that they had tried one final follow-up letter to get instructions from the Applicant with regard to the future of this appeal and that they would inform the EAT if a response was received within the next twenty one days.
6. On 13 December the CRE wrote to the EAT confirming that they had still heard nothing from the Applicant. They had written to her informing her that the CRE was not in a position to continue to act for her in this matter any further and asked the EAT to note that the CRE were no longer representing the Applicant and that any correspondence should be direct to the Applicant. They provided the EAT with the most recent address which was an address in Paris.
7. On 19 December the EAT replied to the CRE informing the CRE that the EAT had written direct to Miss Watimani at the address supplied and advised her that the matter would be set down for disposal unless the EAT heard from her within the next twenty eight days. It confirmed that the CRE had been removed as a representative.
8. The letter sent direct to Miss Watimani was dated 19 December. It informed her that, if she wished to continue with the appeal, she needed to contact the EAT within the next twenty eight days to advise of her intentions. If no contact were received, the appeal would be set down for disposal.
9. There was no contact from Miss Watimani and accordingly, on 20 July 2001, the matter was set down for disposal today and due notice was sent to the parties, including Miss Watimani. There has been no contact from Miss Watimani, pursuant to any of that correspondence. She has not attended the hearing today and accordingly, we dismiss her appeal for want of prosecution.