[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Johnston v. Wilkinson (t/a Care and Housing (Scotland)) [2007] UKEAT 0030_05_0902 (9 February 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2007/0030_05_0902.html Cite as: [2007] UKEAT 0030_05_0902, [2007] UKEAT 30_5_902

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Neither present nor represented
For the Respondent	Neither present nor represented


 


SUMMARY

Summary

Circumstances in which appeal dismissed when appellant failed to attend hearing.


 


THE HONOURABLE LADY SMITH

Background

1. Following a hearing before the Employment Tribunal sitting at Glasgow on 1 February 2005, a judgment was registered on 16 February 2005 in which a redundancy claim advanced on behalf of the claimant was dismissed but her claim for payment of wages in lieu of notice was upheld.
2. A notice of appeal in respect of the refusal of the claimant's redundancy claim was received by this Tribunal on 18 March 2005. A preliminary hearing was ordered to take place on 23 November 2005. The claimant's solicitor lodged written submissions for the purpose of that hearing but there was no attendance on her behalf on that date. This Tribunal considered the written submissions and having done so ordered that the appeal should be set down for a full hearing. That hearing was fixed for 6 April 2006.
3. By letter dated 7 March 2006, the appellant's solicitor wrote advising that his client would not be taking up the offer of Legal Aid that had been made to her and that he would not, accordingly, be able to represent her at the forthcoming hearing. By letter dated 31 March 2006 the same solicitor wrote advising that the appellant had appealed against the Scottish Legal Aid Board's assessment of her contribution but the outcome of that appeal was not yet known. An adjournment of the hearing on 6 April was, accordingly, sought on her behalf. That adjournment was granted.
4. By letter dated 6 June 2006, this Tribunal wrote to the appellant asking her to write within fourteen days and advise of the details regarding the position with her Legal Aid application. No reply was received to that letter. A reminder was sent by letter dated 4 July 2006 in which the appellant was advised that if there was no response the appeal would be re-listed for a full hearing.
5. By letter dated 22 August 2006, this Tribunal advised the appellant that a hearing had been fixed and enclosed a notice intimating that that hearing would take place on 9 February 2007. Nothing was heard in response.
6. By letter dated 19 December 2006, this Tribunal wrote again to the appellant reminding her that the appeal was listed for a full hearing on 9 February 2007 and also reminding her of the need to lodge bundles, a chronology and a list of authorities. No response was received.
7. By letter dated 16 January 2007, this Tribunal wrote once again to the appellant referring to their letter of 19 December and reminding the appellant of her obligation to comply with the requirement to lodge documents. Again no written response was received.
8. Nothing was heard from the appellant until 7 February 2007 when she left a message on the answering machine at this Tribunal, after the close of business, regarding the hearing. The message said that she knew nothing about the case and it would have to be adjourned. Ms Tindall, the Registrar's associate based at this office telephoned the appellant's mobile number at 9.10 am on 8 February 2007 but got no reply. She left a message asking the appellant to call her back as a matter of urgency. At 9.30, she telephoned her home number but got no reply. At 9.45, she telephoned her home number again and left a message. At 12.55, she again called the appellant's mobile number. The appellant advised her that she had not received any of the five letters that this Tribunal had sent to her since last June (as detailed above). However, she confirmed her address and postcode; it was the address and postcode to which all five letters had been sent. She did not suggest that she had been having any other problems with her mail. She said that she would not be attending court for the hearing and that she wished to have an adjournment. She was advised by Ms Tindall that if she did not appear there was a risk that her appeal would be dismissed.
9. The next contact between the appellant and this Tribunal was that she emailed the office at 21.20 on 8 February 2007, in the following terms:

" I would like to request an adjournment of my case which I believe is due to proceed on the 09/02/07. I was unaware of the commencement of the case. I am a single mother and a student nurse. I am on placement at the moment. Unfortunately I have no means by which to travel to Edinburgh and do not have the money required for public transport. I was relying on my former employer accompanying me to the appeal. Unfortunately he is out of the country at the moment. I appreciate that this is very short notice and would appreciate the judge's understanding in this matter."

10. The appellant did not appear nor was she represented on 9 February 2007.
11. This Tribunal has a discretion whether or not to grant the adjournment and it is also incumbent on it, in the light of the appellant's non-appearance, to consider whether or not to dismiss the appeal. It was the unanimous and firm view of this Tribunal that the appeal should, in the circumstances, be dismissed. It was not accepted that the five letters sent by this Tribunal to which we have referred were not received at the appellant's address. Quite apart from anything else, she had had sufficient knowledge of the imminence of the appeal hearing to telephone regarding it on 7 February 2007. This Tribunal are not aware of any means by which the appellant could have known of the hearing other than by means of the correspondence relating to it. That correspondence had given the appellant ample notice not only of the hearing date but of the appellant's obligations regarding the lodging of documents. The appellant had not, at any time, made any effort to enquire as to the position with the progress of her appeal yet she knew she had an appeal outstanding. Further, the appellant had not even yet advised this Tribunal of the position regarding her Legal Aid application despite the fact that it must have been determined long before now.
12. Overall, the history showed a blatant disregard by the appellant of her obligation to keep track of the progress of her own appeal and it was considered that no good reason was advanced for granting the adjournment.
13. We will, accordingly, pronounce an order refusing the application for an adjournment and dismissing the appeal.