[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Baptiste v. Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Office & Anor [2001] UKEAT 0274_00_2303 (23 March 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0274_00_2303.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 0274_00_2303, [2001] UKEAT 274__2303

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT)

1. This matter is concerned with the appeal of Mrs Pamela Baptiste in proceedings Baptiste v (1) Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Office (2) Mr Peter Hughes.
2. On 27 September 1999 Mrs Baptiste lodged an IT1 for unfair dismissal and racial discrimination. She said:

"I worked as a Consular Officer for the British High Commissioner in St Lucia."

She then goes on to describe her complaint. She gave her address on the IT1 as 15 Stanthorpe Road, Streatham, London SW16. At that stage she had advisers, North Lambeth Law Centre, and an address for them was given.

3. The IT3 that was lodged by the Respondents on 20 October 1999 said:

"The Respondents aver and admit that at all material times the Applicant was employed as a Consular Officer for the British High Commission in St Lucia under a contract of employment governed by local law."

They added some letters of appointment, and they say:

"Accordingly the Respondents submit that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the Applicant's claim for unfair dismissal and/or race discrimination.

They then refer to the Employment Rights Act and point out that relevant sections do not apply to Mrs Baptiste's case. In their paragraph 4 they say:

"Section 4(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 renders it unlawful to discriminate against employees and prospective employees only in relation to employment at an establishment in Great Britain.

In their paragraph 6 they say:

"The Applicant worked wholly outside Great Britain. The Respondents aver therefore that neither the Employment Rights Act 1996 nor the Race Relations Act 1976 apply to the Applicant.

As it would seem, a pretty comprehensive knock out blow. At all events, the matter went forward and on 4 January 2000 there was a hearing at London South and on 7 January the decision, which was the decision of the Tribunal under the Chairmanship of Mr A Bano and was unanimous, was sent to the parties and it was that:

"The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider these applications further."

4. On 18 February 2000 there was a notice of appeal from Mrs Baptiste, by then giving her address as care of the North Lambeth Law Centre. On 26 June 2000 Mrs Baptiste's advisers suggested that the case should be adjourned and the Employment Appeal Tribunal vacated the hearing that had otherwise been fixed for 4 July 2000. The reason was that it was thought that Mrs Baptiste was going to issue proceedings in St Lucia and the plan, it seems, was that when she did that she would drop proceedings in England. It transpired later that she had not launched proceedings in St Lucia.
5. On 2 October the Treasury Solicitor acting for the Respondents asked for the position to be looked into by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. It transpired that Mrs Baptiste's English advisers could not get instructions. They were told on 29 January that if no indications of Mrs Baptiste's intentions were given by 1 February, the Treasury Solicitor would move to have the appeal dismissed.
6. On 24 February 2001 the Employment Appeal Tribunal received a letter from the North Lambeth Law Centre; it said:

"We have not been contacted by the Appellant since October 2000. We therefore wrote to her and said that we could no longer act for her and we closed her file on 20 December 2000. Please contact our former client direct."

7. On 26 February the Employment Appeal Tribunal wrote to her at the address which she had given in Streatham, 15 Stanthorpe Road, and said:

"Please confirm within 14 days of the date of this letter whether you are proceeding with this appeal. If no reply is received the matter will be referred to the Registrar for further consideration and direction."

Nothing further has been heard. We assume that that letter sent to 15 Stanthorpe Road has not been returned through the returned post office arrangements. Tempting as it is simply to dismiss the appeal, it is unclear that we have the power to do so at this stage, despite the appeal having all the appearance, on the merits, of being hopeless. No "unless order" has been made and no hearing date has been fixed, no warning has been given by the EAT of the risk of the appeal being struck out or dismissed if nothing is done. So we think it would be premature to dispose of the case at this hearing today. What we do instead is this: we direct that a Preliminary Hearing is to be fixed for a date not earlier than 28 days after whichever is the latest of the sending out of notice to, firstly, Mrs Baptiste's erstwhile solicitors (together with a note asking that it should be forwarded to her if they can forward it to her) and, secondly, to her United Kingdom address as so far given, and, thirdly, to any other address in the United Kingdom believed to be such as may lead to contact with her. Those three directions are to be performed by sending out notice that should expressly warn her that if she neither attends nor is represented at the Preliminary Hearing so fixed there is a real risk that her appeal will be struck out or dismissed without more ado.

8. The provision of the relatively long period of 28 days from the sending out of the notices we have contemplated is in order that, if she is still abroad, in St Lucia or somewhere else, the 28 days should be ample time for her first of all to get the letter and, secondly, to act upon it. Subject to that direction we do nothing further at this stage.