[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Singh v. Durport Harper Foundries Ltd [2000] UKEAT 0141_00_1805 (18 May 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/0141_00_1805.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 0141_00_1805, [2000] UKEAT 141__1805

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Appellant neither present nor Represented


 


JUDGE CLARK

1. The appeal was listed for preliminary hearing before us today. Before the Employment Tribunal the Appellant Mr Gurnum Singh was represented by a solicitor, Mr Ali who drafted the grounds of this appeal. On 9 May 2000 a firm of solicitors Harbans Singh & Co, with the reference Mr Ali, wrote to the Registrar indicating that Harban Singh & Co would be acting for Mr Gurnum Singh in place of his previous solicitors Chamba & Co, that they had requested the transfer of the papers in the case from Chamba & Co, but did not anticipate receiving them before this hearing today on 18 May 2000.
2. The Registrar wrote on 11 May 2000 to Mr Ali at Harban Singh & Co indicating that any application for an adjournment of today's hearing ought to be made this morning to the Tribunal.
3. At 10.50am this morning a member of the Employment Appeal Tribunal staff telephoned Harban Singh & Co and spoke to Mr Ali who said that nobody will be attending court today and he relied on his letter of 9 May asking for a postponement. He has still not received the papers from his old firm Chamba & Co. We say at once; we are unimpressed by Mr Ali's conduct in this case. It seems to us that it was for him to arrange with his former employers to take this case with him to his new firm, bearing in mind the letter from Chamba & Co to the Appellant dated 2 May 2000 in which that firm indicated Mr Ali was leaving and that no other Employment solicitor in the practice was employed to deal with such matters.
4. Nevertheless, we are not prepared to visit that state of affairs on the Appellant himself. Accordingly we shall grant the postponement request with some reluctance. We make it clear that there will be no further adjournments in this case. The case will be relisted for preliminary hearing and it will go ahead on the date specified. We also point out the requirement under the Employment Appeal Tribunal Practice Direction that a skeleton argument be lodged at least 7 days before the preliminary hearing takes place. The grounds of appeal appear to us to be discursive and unfocused and a skeleton argument is essential in this case.