United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR BARKLEM (of Counsel) APPEARING UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT LAW APPEAL ADVICE SCHEME (ELAAS)


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: The Appellant , Mrs Kimberley–Little, commenced these proceedings, complaining of Unfair and Wrongful Dismissal by her former employer, Puccinos Ltd, by an Originating Application presented to the Ashford Employment Tribunal on 31^st July 1998.

1. The case was listed for hearing before a Chairman, Mr G W Davis, sitting alone on 16^th December 1998. Neither party attended. The Chairman promulgated a decision on 22^nd December 1998, dismissing the Originating Application on the non-attendance of the Applicant. By a letter dated 2^nd January 1999, received by this Tribunal on 6^th January, the Appellant wrote to the Registrar of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, in effect making application for a review of the Chairman's decision on the grounds that she had been discharged from a Nursing Home having suffered injury some two days before the date fixed for the Tribunal hearing and as she puts it, she had forgotten about the Tribunal hearing in the trauma which she had suffered.
2. A copy of that letter was unfortunately not sent to the Employment Tribunal. Had such a letter been sent, we are confident that it would have been treated as an Application for Review within time. Instead, the Appellant followed that letter with a Notice of Appeal, dated 13^th January 1999, to this Tribunal. That Notice was received on 18^th January.
3. The appeal now comes before us today for a preliminary hearing. At this hearing, the Appellant has been represented by Mr Barklem, under the ELAAS pro bono scheme, and Mr West, the Respondent's representative has attended. The upshot of the hearing this morning is that the Appellant seeks leave to withdraw her appeal. We shall allow her to do so and consequently it will be formally dismissed. However, Mr Barklem on her behalf, has invited us to direct the Registrar to send copies of the letter dated 2^nd January and the Notice of Appeal dated 13^th January 1999, to which we have referred, to the Employment Tribunal.
4. It is, we understand, the Appellant's intention to apply out of time for a review of the original decision dated 22^nd December 1998. Whether or not that application is permitted will, of course, be entirely a matter for the Tribunal Chairman. But we make the observation that at the time when she wrote to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in January, the Appellant was not professionally represented. Had she been represented, we have little doubt that she would have taken the review route, rather than the appeal route.