BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Bedwell v Devonshire & Partners (Falkland Surgery) [1999] UKEAT 944_98_0105 (1 May 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/944_98_0105.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 944_98_105, [1999] UKEAT 944_98_0105 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
LORD DAVIES OF COITY CBE
MRS J M MATTHIAS
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING – EX PARTE
| For the Appellant | NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT |
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK: This Appeal came on for Preliminary Hearing before a division of the Employment Appeal Tribunal presided over by Mr Justice Lindsay on 3rd December 1998. On that occasion the Appellant did not appear and was not represented. The matter was adjourned on the basis that a letter be written to the Appellant and her representative, Mr Ishmail indicating when the date of the restored hearing would be and further indicating that if there was not attendance at that time, the matter would be dismissed without further notice and without investigation into the merits. Such a letter was written to Mr Ishmail on 12th February 1999, giving notice of the day's restored Preliminary Hearing. That letter was copied to Ms Bedwell herself and to the Respondent. Today there is no attendance by or on behalf of the Appellant. We are told that a message was left on an answering machine to the effect that the Appellant could not attend today because she was suffering from stress. That message was apparently left by Mr Ishmail. He did not say whether or not he would be attending on her behalf and in these circumstances, no attendance having taken place, it seems to us that the Appellant is in breach of the direction given on the last occasion and that in accordance with Rule 26 of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules of Procedure, this case must be struck out.
