BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Maher v Post Office [1999] UKEAT 1347_98_0303 (3 March 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1347_98_0303.html
Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1347_98_303, [1999] UKEAT 1347_98_0303

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


BAILII case number: [1999] UKEAT 1347_98_0303
Appeal No. EAT/1347/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 3 March 1999

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLLAND

MRS J M MATTHIAS

MS B SWITZER



MR K F MAHER APPELLANT

THE POST OFFICE RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

© Copyright 1999


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant Neither Present nor Represented

       


     

    MR JUSTICE HOLLAND This appeal comes before us today by way of a preliminary hearing. Is there anything in this appeal which would merit an inter-partes hearing? The short answer is 'no', there is nothing at all. We are able to take that robust line in the following circumstances.

    This originates as a complaint of unfair dismissal. It was listed before an Industrial Tribunal held at Liverpool on 20 July 1998. On that occasion, the Applicant did not appear. He had given no prior notice and under those circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint. Thereafter the Applicant wrote to the Tribunal proffering an excuse for his non-attendance. It was decided that this amounted to an application for a review of the decision to dismiss his complaint, and a hearing was specified for that application before an Employment Tribunal held at Liverpool on 2 October 1998. In the event, the Applicant did not appear, yet further he had given no notice at all of his intention to be absent. In those circumstances, that application for the review was dismissed.

    He appeals to this Tribunal proffering some further excuse. In the event, notwithstanding it has been listed this morning, he has not appeared. Again, this Tribunal has received no prior notification of his intention not to appear nor indeed any explanation. In those circumstances, we have no hesitation in dismissing this appeal. There is plainly no reasonable prospect of it ever being prosecuted no more than the original applications were prosecuted before the Tribunals below.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1347_98_0303.html