United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR O OGUNNOWO (Solicitor) City Legal Associates Wickham House 10 Cleveland Way London E1 4TR


 


MISS RECORDER SLADE QC:

1. This appeal is before us on a preliminary hearing to determine whether the grounds of appeal raise a reasonably arguable point. In this case an application claiming unfair dismissal made on behalf of the Appellant was listed for hearing at the Tribunal at London Central. On the day of the hearing, the Appellant's representative telephoned the Tribunal at 9:05 am to say that he was ill and would be unable to attend by 10:51 am, the Appellant had not appeared and the Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to Rule 9(3) of Employment Tribunal Rules (Employment Tribunals Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993, Schedule 1, paragraph 9(3).
2. The complaint of unfair dismissal made by the Appellant had been considered by a previous Tribunal which had dismissed his claim. There had been a successful appeal to this Employment Appeal Tribunal and the matter was before the London Central Tribunal on this occasion for the remitted hearing.
3. We are told that the Appellant's representative was taken ill on the day on which the case was listed for hearing. We are also told that the Appellant had received notification of the hearing and that notification did include the address of the Tribunal where the case was to be heard. However, we are also told that the Appellant, having been before this Employment Appeal Tribunal on two previous occasions, mistakenly believed that his case was to be heard here at this Employment Appeal Tribunal rather than at Woburn Place. So on the date the case was listed for hearing he turned up here only to be told that he was in the wrong place. He then made his way to Woburn Place. By the time he reached there, the Employment Tribunal had decided to dismiss his application.
4. It is accepted by the Appellant's representative, as indeed is the case, that an Employment Tribunal has a discretion to dismiss an application in the absence of the appearance of the Applicant, provided it takes certain steps. It is not in issue but that the Tribunal took those steps.
5. What is in issue in this appeal is the exercise of that discretion and whether that discretion was exercised judicially. In our view there are reasonable grounds for arguing that in this case that discretion was not exercised judicially in the light of the history of the proceedings, the illness of the Appellant's representative and time when the decision to dismiss the claim on grounds of non-attendance was taken and accordingly, we allow this appeal to go through to a full hearing.