IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM AN EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
(MR RECORDER BURKE QC)
Strand London WC2 Thursday, 18th April 2002 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
MR MICHAEL S BARRETT | ||
Applicant | ||
- v - | ||
DICKSON MANCHESTER & CO LTD | ||
Respondent |
____________________
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 0171 421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Respondent did not appear and was unrepresented.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Thursday, 18th April 2002
"very severe cocaine addiction, which has left me suffering severe paranoid attacks to this very day and leaves me very confused on how I spent my last 6 months in the previous millennium".
"We have pointed out to [counsel] that if the substantive appeal, as it was, was out of time, and if no extension of time were granted, although an extension of time was sought by Mr Barrett, there would be no point in considering whether or not the appeal could proceed on summary reasons because the appeal would never get off the ground, it having been presented too late. "
"Mr Menzies [Mr Barrett's counsel] has helpfully agreed with that analysis and has therefore made concise and extremely helpful submissions to us as to why an extension of time for the substantive appeal should be granted. He also agrees, pragmatically and helpfully, that if we were to extend time and if we agreed that the appeal should proceed on summary reasons (as if time were extended we would be minded to do) there would be no purpose in our considering the appeal against the refusal to grant extended reasons. But if we were not to extend time the substantive appeal could never get under way in a substantive form; and, therefore, for that reason too there would be no point in our considering the appeal against the refusal to grant extended reasons. Thus, that appeal can be dismissed whichever way we deal with the substantive appeal and we therefore dismiss it."
"It is in the interest of Justice for my case to be heard at a full and/or main hearing within the E.T. as to date my former employer has been allowed to get away with discrimination against a minority. My Human Rights have been abused by my former employer and I cannot stand down until they are held accountable for their actions even if I need to go to the European Court of Human Rights.
The worst thing is delays in preliminary issues that never even existed. A law that has to me changed the rules as it goes along. I still suffer from having been discriminated against. The initial Decision of 2/11/2000 needs to be reviewed as it was made as a result of a misunderstanding.
The decision was unjust because of serious procedural irregularities before the EAT proceedings as attached in the Bundle of Documents for this Appeal. Because of the procedural irregularities the Decision of 18/1/2002 is wrong (as per bundle of documents)."