United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


MR JUSTICE CHARLES: The parties to this appeal are a Ms Kyi and the Post Office.

1. The appeal comes before us today by way of Preliminary Hearing. There is someone in court observing on behalf of the Post Office. Miss Kyi has not appeared personally or by a representative.
2. It has not been easy reading the papers to discover precisely what has been going on in this case. What we propose to do is set out the position as we see it before indicating what we propose to do.
3. The appeal that is before us is against a decision of the Employment Tribunal dated 26 February 1999 (Employment Appeal Tribunal Case Number 6003582/1998). The appeal number is EAT 617/99/DA. The order of the Employment Tribunal that is the subject of the appeal is in the following terms:

"The application is dismissed on withdrawal by the applicant."

The appeal is contained in two Notices of Appeal. The first is dated 8 April 1999. The grounds of the appeal, as initially drafted, appear at page 2 of the bundle before us in a letter dated 7 April 1999 and those grounds are as follows:

"1. EAT has discretion to accept an appeal which is not accompanied by Industrial Tribunal decision giving extended written reasons. Please therefore I would ask Registrar EAT to treat my appeal as an exceptional case.

2. Since 1996 Post office deliberately create and use Burmese torrorist (sic) in my employment case & mess up my case with their untrue make up stories, inside outside post office, all their make up stories, evidence & witness created to prove their make up stories are not applicable to my employment case, they are different issues.

3. Please therefore I wanted my case 6 victimization for physical work related unnecessary injury dated 7 August 1998 to be heard by independent Tribunal (except Stratford) Mr Cole. (Reasons given:

4. Post office demand my case (6) to be heard by Mr Cole, Stratford IT, influenced by post office secret make up stories, evidence & witness 1996/1997/1998 to prove their make up stories.

5. I strongly objected post office demand for above reasons. But IT ignored my request & decided to transfer to Mr Cole, Stratford Tribunal.

6. Upon IT (London North) decision to transfer, I withdraw my Victimization Case No. (6) in order to apply transfer to some other Tribunal (except Stratford, Mr Cole) to be heard independent & to get justice for my physical & mental sufferings deliberately caused by my employer against my pain, against my own duty 9 years coding seniority entitlement right, against my will, everyday. (see Annex 1)

7. Please therefore I would request Registrar EAT, to treat my appeal as an exceptional case & treat my case as fresh & grant transfer to some other independent Tribunal (except Mr Cole, Stratford) & let my case to be heard without any influenced make up stories."

As appears from those grounds the case that is relevant to this appeal (and thus the case before the Employment Tribunal) is Ms Kyi's sixth application against the Post Office. We will return to the history in a moment.

4. This Tribunal wrote to Ms Kyi on 14 April 1999 in the following terms:

"I am writing to acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Appeal which you have entered at this office.

I have considered your Notice of Appeal as drafted and it appears to me that it does not raise a point of law and therefore has very little chance of success. It may be, of course, that you wish to take advice on this matter.

If you still wish to proceed with your appeal please reply to this letter giving your reasons why you are dissatisfied with my decision, submitting a fresh notice of appeal if necessary. I will then reconsider my decision or place your papers before a judge for his direction as to whether any further action should be taken on the appeal. It is possible that he will direct that your appeal should be considered on documents alone and it is therefore important that you should clearly express all the arguments which you wish to be considered.

If, however, I do not have a reply from you within 28 days of the date of this letter I shall take the absence of any such request as a consent to the withdrawal of your appeal."

Miss Kyi replied in the following terms:

"Thank you for your acknowledgement dated 14 April 1999.

I wish to appeal against your above letter, reasons as follows:

REASONS

1. Feb 98 Stratford IT already wrong in law dismissed my case (1-5) without letting & telling me to submit skeleton argument against my full hearing March 98. (see Annex (1)

2. Therefore (7 Nov 98) I submit my case (6) IT Central Office and registered at IT London North independent & appropriate for my work place situated at North London.

Therefore IT Stratford again wrong in law dismissed my case (6) in Feb 99, which was registered at IT London North.

IT London North was dealing with my case (6) independent.

3. IT London North also wrong in law to honour R's demand to transfer my case to Stratford IT to be heard by Mr Cole who was already wrong in law dismissed my case (1-5). (see Annex (2)

4. Therefore it is very clear I withdraw my case (6) just ……. to transfer some other independent IT instead of transferring IT Stratford who already wrong in law dismissed my case (1-5).

(see Annex (3)

I am not legal trained, but I am doing everything in good faith."

At the same time Ms Kyi also sent an amended Notice of Appeal which is dated 11 May 1999 and that document is as follows:

"Amended Notice of Appeal from decision of Employment Tribunal Stratford dated 26 February 1999.

Application is dismissed on withdrawal by the applicant

1. Grounds of the appeal are as follows:

EAT has discretion to accept appeal against IT decision without reasons as an exceptional case.

7 November 1998

1. Case (6) registered at IT London North, which is independent & appropriate as my work place situated at Islington, North London. Difficult for R to influence again new IT London North.

Therefore R deliberate created my case to be heard by R's influenced Mr Cole, IT Stratford & created to transfer my case (6).

2. lt is also wrong in law IT London North caused stress & illness by ignoring my repeated request transferring my case (6) to IT Stratford which already misled me during my illness caused damages

3 Also wrong in law R deliberately demand my case (6) to be transferred Stratford & heard by Mr Cole.

Also wrong in law London North IT decided to honour R demand & my case (6) to be heard by Mr Cole who decision already wrong in law for my case 1.

Therefore Stratford IT wrong in law to dismiss my case (6)

4. Also wrong in law IT London North ignored & fail to take into account all my sufferings from Stratford IT which made me ill.

5. Also, wrong in law IT London North ignored my repeated objections of R's demand of my case (6) to be transferred to Stratford.

6. Also wrong in law IT London North ignored my repeated requests not to transfer to Stratford which did my case (1) decision wrong in law before & caused more illness.

7. Also wrong in law IT London North failed to take into account my health is repeatedly damaged by R everyday racial harassment & can't afford to suffer anymore from IT Stratford, mislead.

8. Also wrong in law IT London North failed to take into account how much & how long innocent victim suffering from R racial discrimination, R still torrorising (sic) my case (6).

9. I already applied for different IT for my case (6), therefore IT London North wrong in law to honour R's demand to transfer my case (6) to IT Stratford to be heard by Mr Cole. (see who was already wrong in law dismissed my case (1-5).

10. IT London North wrong in law to transfer my case (6) to Stratford, by whom I was misled, twiss (sic) confused & suffered, helpless, who was wrong in law dismissed my case (1-5) already

11. IT London North wrong in law to honour R's demand, who was torrorising (sic) my life & all my cases & caused tremendous stress

12. IT London North also wrong in law to honour R's demand who never do anything in good faith.

FEB 98 IT STRATFORD WRONG IN LAW DISMSSED MY CASE (1-5)

13. IT Stratford wrong in law dismissed my case (6) Feb 99 because I submit my case (6) at IT Central office because IT Stratford is under influence of R creations & already caused me damages.

14. IT Stratford already wrong in law dismissed my case (1-5) without letting & telling me to submit skeleton argument, & I was misled.

15. IT Stratford itself wrong in law because decision was not true & accurate & contrary to what Mr Cole really said in the hearing. (Annex.

16. IT Stratford wrong in law because IT decision was according to R's untrue skeleton argument which I received only in the hearing.

17. IT Stratford itself wrong in law because I was misled, confused by IT clerk 3 days which made me attend hearing unfit.

18. IT Stratford wrong in law because during Feb. 98 I was on sick leave, very ill, unfit for hearing. (Medical Report provided).

19. So many untrue make up stories consist in the IT decision & it shocked me, I can't afford to suffer anymore from IT Stratford. I just need justice, not stress. My case (1-5) was under stress.

20. IT Stratford decision wrong in law dismissed my case (1-5) because I was misled, attend hearing alone, without Rep, just to collect documents from R (never provided) & intimidated.

21. IT Stratford itself wrong in law to dismiss my case (6), because I did not submit & registered my case at IT Stratford.

22. IT Stratford itself wrong in law to dismiss my case (6) because IT London North was dealing with my case (6)

23. IT Stratford already wrong in law dismissed my case (1-5) without letting & telling me to submit skeleton argument (see …

Therefore I would ask EAT to exercise its discretion & treat exceptional case & my case (6) to be transferred independent should be granted."

5. As we understand it, enclosed with those documents when they arrived at this Tribunal was a medical note dated 4 February 1998 in the following terms:

"This woman is suffering from stress, depression and anxiety. Over the past 6 years she has experienced consistent harassment in the workplace and has suffered because of this. She has been off work since October 1997 to the present and was off for 6 months in 1996/1997. In my opinion, she is not fit to attend the Appeal Hearing this month. I believe this would be stressful for her and exacerbate her mental health problems."

The position therefore is that the appeal that is before us is an appeal against an Order which, on its terms, was a decision that the application "is dismissed on withdrawal by the Applicant". On its face that a surprising appeal.

6. I turn now to deal with the history. This appears from a letter written by the Respondent, the Post Office, through their Legal Services Department, which is dated 26 May 1999 and has an annotation on it that it was copied to Ms Kyi on 8 June 1999. That letter appears at pages 34 to 36 of our bundle and is in the following terms:

"Thank you for your letter dated 13th May 1999, enclosing the Appellant's Notice of Appeal, together with the Notice of Hearing in which you inform us that this matter has been set down for a preliminary hearing on Friday 16th July 1999. We have already returned the Respondent's PHD form.

Whilst we appreciate that the Respondent to an appeal is not entitled to present arguments relating to the merits of the appeal at a preliminary hearing, it does appear that the documentation provided by the Appellant with her Notice of Appeal is incomplete and that it may be of assistance to the EAT to be provided with the full sequence of events.

It appears as though the Appellant is seeking to appeal against the decision of the Tribunal to dismiss her sixth Tribunal application against the Respondent, on withdrawal of that application by the Appellant. By way of clarification, the sequence of events to-date has been as follows:-

1. The Appellant brought 5 Tribunal applications against the Respondent between the 22ndAugust 1995 and the 30th December 1997. Each alleged race discrimination and/or victimisation and each application was contested by the Respondent. All 5 applications were presented to the Stratford Employment Tribunal and, in due course, they were consolidated. At an interlocutory hearing on the 26th February 1998, the Chairman, Mr Cole, decided that the 5 claims brought by the Appellant should be struck out and dismissed on the grounds that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by or on behalf of the Appellant had been frivolous and vexatious. A copy of Mr Cole's decision is attached (Appendix 1).

2. The Appellant subsequently applied for a review of Mr Cole's decision, which application was refused (Appendix 2). The Appellant subsequently sought leave to appeal against the Tribunal's decision, although she was out of time for doing so. She therefore sought an application for an extension of time for lodging her Notice of Appeal but this was rejected. The Appellant thereafter appealed against this decision, which appeal was eventually heard by Mr Justice Morison on the 11th March 1999. Mr Justice Morison decided (Appendix 3) that this was not a case in which he should extend time for the Appellant to submit her Notice of Appeal. It does appear as though the Appellant subsequently sought both a review of this decision and also leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, both of which applications were refused (see the EAT correspondence dated 13th May 1999: potential appeal number PA/508/98).

3. In the interim, the Appellant presented her sixth Tribunal complaint against the Respondent on the 7th November 1998. On this occasion, however, the application was presented to the Tribunal at London North, rather than Stratford. The Respondent lodged its Notice of Appearance on the 3rd December 1998 and, at the same time, wrote to the Tribunal (Appendix 4), suggesting that it appeared to the Respondent that the Appellant's sixth Tribunal complaint may in part at least be motivated by an attempt to circumvent the fact that the allegations contained in her first 5 complaints had been struck out and also asking, in view of the fact that the Stratford Tribunal had previously handled the 5 earlier complaints, that the case be transferred to Stratford. The Respondent wrote to the Appellant on the 10^th December 1998 and provided her with a copy of its letter to the Tribunal, together with a copy of the Notice of Appearance.

4. The Respondent next wrote to the Tribunal on the 6th January 1999, enclosing a slightly amended Notice of Appearance (Appendix 5). At the same time, the Respondent again asked that the matter be transferred to the Stratford Tribunal. No response having been forthcoming, the Respondent sent a chasing letter to the Tribunal on the 27th January 1999, and subsequently received a letter from the Tribunal dated 1st February 1999 which indicated that the Regional Chairman, Mrs Mason, had instructed that the case be transferred back to Stratford (Appendix 6).

5. The Respondent subsequently received a copy of the Appellant's letter to Mrs Mason dated 2nd February 1999 (a copy of which appears in the bundle accompanying the Appellant's amended Notice of Appeal) together with Mrs Mason's reply to the Appellant dated 10th February 1999 (Appendix 7). You will see that Mrs Mason strongly refuted the various allegations made by the Appellant about Mr Cole and also explained why the matter should be transferred to Stratford. The decision to transfer was subsequently confirmed by the Tribunal in a letter dated 11^th February 1999 (Appendix 8).

Shortly thereafter, the Respondent received a copy of a letter from the Appellant to Mrs Mason dated 11th February 1999, informing Mrs Mason of the Appellant's decision to withdraw her case due to her ill health. A copy of this letter, which does not appear to be in the Respondent's bundle, is attached (Appendix 9). In consequence of the Appellant's letter, the Respondent subsequently received a copy of the Tribunal decision, dismissing her claim on withdrawal (a copy of which appears in the bundle attached to her amended Notice of Appeal).

With regard to the various submissions set out by the Appellant in her letter dated 7th May 1999 to yourself, the Respondent believes that the aforementioned correspondence clearly demonstrates that the decision of the Regional Chairman to transfer the case from London North to Stratford was properly considered. In addition, and contrary to the Appellant's submission that it was clear that the reason for withdrawing her case was that she wished to transfer it to another Tribunal, we would refer to the wording of the Appellant's letter of withdrawal which makes no such reference. Furthermore, it is quite clear that the Appellant had entered into separate correspondence with the Regional Chairman concerning her wish for the matter to be heard by the Tribunal at London North and that her request had been considered but rejected.

We hope that the enclosed documentation and these comments are of use to the EAT."

As appears from the terms of that letter it contains a number of enclosures. We have read those enclosures and they confirm the points made in the letter. The transfer of the proceedings (and that is the sixth set of proceedings to the Stratford office) appears at page 59 of our bundle and is in the following terms:

"On the direction of the Regional Chairman of the Tribunals the above Originating Application case has been transferred to Stratford office.

All correspondence should be addressed to:

The Regional Secretary

Employment Tribunals

44 The Broadway

Stratford

London E15 1XH

Telephone number: 0181 221 0914."

The letter is dated 11 February 1999.

7. Also at page 60 of our bundle is a further letter dated 11 February from Ms Kyi to Mrs Mason, the Regional Chairman of the Employment Tribunals, London (North) and the terms of that letter appears at page 60 of our bundle and is in the following terms:

"Thank you for your letter of 10 February 1999.

I am writing to inform you that I withdraw my case No. 6003582/98 due to my ill health.

Thank you for your kind assistance."

It is to be noted that that letter conforms with the terms of the Order that was made in the case, which is case No. 6003582/98, namely that Ms Kyi was withdrawing that case. So far so good.

8. We now turn to correspondence relating to the appeal before us (which is EAT/617/99). On 11 July 1999 Ms Kyi wrote to this Tribunal seeking an adjournment. That letter is as follows, at page 4 of our bundle:

"I would much appreciate it if you could kindly grant me adjournment (6) months for appeal hearing on 16 July 1999 as I am not well.

Reasons:

1. I am on sick leave since March 99. Due to work place racial harassment & victimization since 1991

2. In 1998 November. I suffered physical pain in my head.

3. In 1999 June. it turned into inflammation. Difficult concentration.

4. In 1999 June. Shoulder injury caused by forced to carry 5 lbs boxes, (July 96-Aug 98) suffered serious pain & inflammation work related.

5. I am suffering pain and inflammation as direct result of work place bad treatment & victimization."

That application succeeded and by a Notice dated 12 November 1999 the Preliminary Hearing in respect of the appeal was fixed for today.

9. As to the appeal, we have had no further communication. Attempts have been made to contact Ms Kyi both here and abroad but they have been unsuccessful. This Tribunal has however, received a letter dated 28 December 1999 from an advocate, U Myo Myint BA (Law) LL B. That letter in the top right hand corner bears a reference No. 3202522/1999 which it appears is the reference number to another set of proceedings before an Employment Tribunal as to which we have no knowledge on the documents before us. That letter appears at pages 2 to 3 of the supplemental bundle of documents before us and is in the following terms:

"I am writing on behalf of Ms Kyi on her request.

Ms Kyi explained she wish to appeal against Employment Tribunal's letter dated 19 Nov.99 refusing her adjournment request fax dated 19 Nov 1999. Ms Kyi received refusal on 4 Dec 99 through her advisor U Aye Thaung, Consultant Advocate. Refusal letter was sent to his office but his name was not written on it.

Ms Kyi explained that she is trying her best & doing everything in good faith despite tremendous stress she has been under.

REASONS

1. 1990 to 1998 Ms Kyi suffered Race discrimination/Disability discrimination & victimization by her same seniority colleague perpetrator Ms Greenaway (coder), shift manager Dave Wellard/code desk manager Steve Sprett. Which made her life hell & her health affected as a result.

2. Nov 98 Ms Kyi suffered physical pain in her head as consequence

3. 3 June 99 Ms Kyi suffered inflammation on her head, & difficulty in concentration.

4. 29 June 99 Ms Kyi suffered shoulder injury as consequence of being forced to carry heavy 5 lbs boxes & demotion, caused treatment with Osteopath

5. July 99 Ms Kyi has been on sick leave & adjournment granted by Employment Appeal Tribunal for her claim No (6) (see. A )

6. 10 Aug 99 Ms Kyi has been on sick leave & adjournment granted by Court of Appeal for her claim No (1) (see B)

7. Sept 99 Ms Kyi has been on sick leave & having treatment for her stress related illness & head inflammation & under intensive care of Neurophysician (see C )

8. 5 Oct 99 Tribunal entirely ignored that Ms Kyi is unwell & away on sick leave & unlawfully fixed direction hearing under influence of demanding and swindling post office during Ms Kyi has been on sick leave (see D).

9. 19 Nov 99 Ms Kyi has been on sick leave & unwell, under treatment and intensive care of Neurophysician & unfit for hearing. Ms Kyi has requested 6 months adjournment on medical ground. (see E)

10. 4 Dec 99 Ms Kyi received letter dated 19 November 99. Tribunal entirely ignored that Ms Kyi is suffering ill health, on sick leave, away on medical reason & under intensive care of Neurophysician, Tribunal unlawfully refused her adjournment request (see F)

Ms Kyi complained that to her surprise she was not provided acknowledgement & IT3 for her IT1 dated 6.7.99 and IT1 dated 30.7.99, instead Ms Kyi has received unlawful Notice of Hearing dated 5 Oct 99 fixing hearing on 24 Nov, during Ms Kyi is on sick leave.

Ms Kyi complained that Employment Tribunal & Post Office unlawfully dragging her Tribunal claims around all the time which made her health worse even made impossible for her recovery despite her repeated effort for her health to get better.

All the reasons stated above Ms Kyi would respectfully ask Registrar, EAT, to grant Ms Kyi 6 months adjournment on medical ground as an exceptional case so as to enable her to prepare her case as soon as she get better."

As I have indicated on its face that is a confusing letter because the second paragraph thereof appears not to relate to the appeal that is before us but expresses a wish, on behalf of Ms Kyi, to appeal against a refusal of an Employment Tribunal to grant an adjournment in respect of a hearing which was due to take place on 24 November and therefore has already taken place. It therefore, as I have already mentioned, seems from that letter that Ms Kyi has made another claim against the Post Office which, at a minimum, would be the seventh claim.

10. As to paragraph 6 of the Reasons in that letter, documents are enclosed with the letter which show that an application was made to the Court of Appeal for an adjournment and a sixth-month adjournment was granted which would take that adjournment to February of this year. We do not know what the subject matter of that appeal to the Court of Appeal is. Its number on the documents before us is PTA 1999/6226/3. We note that the adjournment granted by the Court of Appeal was granted at a similar time and was of similar length to the adjournment granted by this Tribunal in respect of the appeal that is before us.
11. As to Reason 7 therein the letter dated 28 December 1999 encloses letters dated 15 November 1998 and 13 December 1999. These are faxed copies of hand written letters which are not easy to decipher but they are addressed to "Whom it may concern" and recommend that Ms Kyi be given medical leave from work for respectively one month from 17 November 1999 to 16 December 1999 and then from 17 December 1999 to 16 January of this year.
12. The final enclosures to the letter of 28 December 1999 are at pages 11 to 17 of the supplemental bundle before us. Included within this correspondence is a letter dated 5 October 1999 from the Employment Tribunals at Stratford, London, the opening paragraph of which is in the following terms:

"A Chairman of the Tribunals considers that a hearing for directions is desirable in this case. The hearing will take place at 10.00 am on Wednesday 24 November 1999 at 44 Broadway, Stratford, London, E15 1XH before a Chairman sitting alone to consider …..

The issues set out at paragraphs 1 –3 of the Respondent's letter of 25 August 1999, (a copy of which is enclosed)." [is to be the subject matter of that hearing].

We have not seen a copy of that letter of 25 August 1999. It is a letter which would have been written by the Post Office. However, we do not think it is wild leap to infer that it dealt with procedural matters relating to the claim and/or the identification of issues or some other matter to be dealt with by way of a Preliminary Hearing within those proceedings.

13. Within that exhibit or enclosure there is a letter dated 29 July 1999 from Ms Kyi which is a letter of similar date to the letter she wrote seeking adjournments from this Tribunal and the Court of Appeal. It is a letter written to the Chief Executive, Royal Mail, Mount Pleasant. It is in the following terms:

"I would like to inform you that I am travelling abroad on 1 August 1999 for medical reason.

Please read my temporary address abroad as:

324A 1^st Street (South)

East Gyogon

Yangon

Myanmar

Instead of previously stated, starting 1 August 1999."

A similar letter dated 1 August 1999 was written to the Central Office of Employment Tribunals.

14. There is also a letter dated 16 November 1999 addressed "To whom it may concern" in the following terms:

"This is to certify that Khin May Kyi is suffering from (1) Tension headache (2) Work related Stress & she has difficulty in concentration due to long term racial harassment.

She is under my care since 28 September 1999 & she is unfit to attend hearing on 24 November 1999, and hearing to be postponed 6 months until she get better."

That is signed by a Dr Mi Mi Cho.

15. By a letter dated 19 November 1999 which bears reference No. 3202522/99, the Employment Tribunal wrote to Ms Kyi at No.56 Ground Floor, Mahabandoola Garden Street, Kyauktada Township, Yangon, Myanmar (and thus not the letter referred to in paragraph 13 hereof but perhaps the address in her letter under reply seeking a postponement) in the following terms:

"1. I refer to your recent request for a postponement of the hearing in this case.

2. A Chairman of the Tribunals has considered carefully all you say and has balanced that against the desirability of bringing this case to a hearing without delay.

3. The Chairman refuses your request for the following reasons(s):

The medical certificate provided does not justify the conclusion that the Applicant is unfit to attend the hearing, the conclusion of these proceedings is likely to make a bigger contribution to the relief of stress than its postponement."

16. That, I think, summarises the information that we have.
17. What is the present position?
18. Firstly, I return to the appeal No. EA/617/99, which is the appeal that is listed before is by way of Preliminary Hearing. As I have said there is no specific request made by or on behalf of Ms Kyi that we should grant a further adjournment of the Preliminary Hearing of that appeal. We shall imply or assume that there is one and that the request is made on the basis of her ill-health. This accords with the stance set out in the letter dated 28 December, which we have referred to and indeed, to her stance taken earlier in July 1999.
19. Leaving aside that implied or assumed application for adjournment for the moment, as we have set out the Order made by the Employment Tribunal that is the subject of this appeal accords with Ms Kyi's letter dated 11 February 1999 withdrawing her case (6003582/98) which we have also set out (see paragraph 7 above). We confess that we have not found it easy to follow her Notice of Appeal and amended Notice of Appeal but, having carefully considered them we have not identified from them any point of law that is reasonably arguable on this appeal.
20. The question therefore arises whether we should, on our assumption that Ms Kyi is making an application to adjourn this Preliminary Hearing, allow such an adjournment to give her an opportunity to attend before us to argue that a point of law that is reasonably arguable is raised on this appeal.
21. The existence of the letter dated 28 December 1999, which we have set out earlier, shows that Miss Kyi is able to give instructions to somebody to make representations on her behalf and we are of the view that the medical evidence that we have seen does not indicate that Ms Kyi is not able on medical grounds to write to this Tribunal herself or to instruct others to write on her behalf, setting out her arguments.
22. It follows that we are not prepared to grant an adjournment on what is perhaps the generous assumption that she is seeking an adjournment of this appeal.
23. We will therefore make an Order dismissing this appeal. However, we will direct that that Order is not to take effect or be drawn up until 14 February 2000 and also direct that if Ms Kyi indicates in writing to this Tribunal on or before 7 February 2000 that she wishes to be heard to present arguments orally or in writing as to why she has raised points of law on this appeal that are reasonably arguable, the order should not be drawn up and this matter should be re-listed for Preliminary Hearing, if possible during the week of 14 February and if practicable it should be listed before me.
24. Turning now to the request that is made in the letter dated 28 December 1999 which, as we have explained, relates to the refusal of the Chairman of the Employment Tribunal to adjourn a hearing on 24 November 1999. In many respects that is now water under the bridge because 24 November has passed. Additionally, as we have pointed out, we do not know what that hearing was about although we made an assumption or guess as to that. Also we do not know what the result of that hearing was.
25. In those circumstances it seems to us that it would be wrong for us to treat that letter as being an appeal before us today. If Ms Kyi or her legal representatives wish to argue that that letter constituted an appeal it would be up to them to take the appropriate steps to have it listed by way of Preliminary Hearing. The whole matter may, as we have indicated, be water under the bridge. We know nothing as to what occurred on 24 November and therefore it seems to us that we can do nothing about that at this stage. All we can do again is to leave it to Ms Kyi and her legal representatives to take such steps as they think appropriate so far as that decision of the Employment Tribunal is concerned.
26. We therefore make no order or direction in respect of the request made in the letter dated 28 December 1999 which, as we have said, does not relate to an appeal which is formally before us today.