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

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Kimberley-Little v. Puccinos Ltd [1999] UKEAT 201_99_0906 (9 June 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/201_99_0906.html
Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 201_99_906, [1999] UKEAT 201_99_0906

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


BAILII case number: [1999] UKEAT 201_99_0906
Appeal No. EAT/201/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 9 June 1999

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK

MR A C BLYGHTON

MR P A L PARKER CBE



MRS D KIMBERLEY - LITTLE APPELLANT

PUCCINOS LTD RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

© Copyright 1999


    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 31st July 1998.

  1. The case was listed for hearing before a Chairman, Mr G W Davis, sitting alone on 16th December 1998. Neither party attended. The Chairman promulgated a decision on 22nd December 1998, dismissing the Originating Application on the non-attendance of the Applicant. By a letter dated 2nd January 1999, received by this Tribunal on 6th 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 13th January 1999, to this Tribunal. That Notice was received on 18th 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 2nd January and the Notice of Appeal dated 13th 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 22nd 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.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/201_99_0906.html