[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Ganiyu v Lanesborough Hotel [1998] UKEAT 658_97_1105 (11 May 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/658_97_1105.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 658_97_1105

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED
For the Respondents	THE RESPONDENTS NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: On 26th February 1997 an Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (South) heard the appellant's complaint of racial discrimination against his employer the respondent, the Lanesborough Hotel. That complaint was dismissed by a decision with extended reasons promulgated on 2nd April 1997.

Following an unsuccessful application for a review, the appellant appealed against the Industrial Tribunal's substantive decision by a Notice dated 13th May 1997.

The appeal was listed for an ex parte preliminary hearing before a division of the EAT presided over Mr Judge Hargrove QC on 21st November 1997. On the appellant's application the matter was adjourned for eight weeks to enable the appellant to seek legal advice. On that occasion the Appeal Tribunal had before it a letter dated 18th November 1997 from solicitors, Ned Nwoko, stating that they had been instructed on behalf of the appellant and needed further time to prepare his case.

On 2nd February 1998 the Registrar wrote to the appellant at his last known address enquiring as to the position in this case. That letter was returned by the Post Office marked "Addressee has gone away". The appellant has provided no forwarding address to the Appeal Tribunal.

On 19th February the Registrar wrote to Ned Nwoko asking what was the current position in the case. Those solicitors were asked to reply within 14 days. No reply has been received.

The case had been listed for hearing today. There is no appearance by or on behalf of the appellant. In these circumstances it is plain to us that the appellant does not intend to pursue his appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.