Appeal No.	 EAT/1033/00 (second)

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 27 July 2001

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE DOUGLAS BROWN
MRS A GALLICO
MR W MORRIS

MR F DENTEH	APPELLANT

(1) COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR THE METROPOLIS
(2) MR E SNOW
(3) MS C HULME
(4) MR PARKER
(5) MS M HARDING	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

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

MR JUSTICE DOUGLAS BROWN

1	This is, or should be, an application by or on behalf of Mr F Denteh for an extension of time in which to comply with the order of the Registrar dated 25 June 2001.  Mr Denteh has not appeared.  His solicitors wrote to the Registrar yesterday asking to come off the record, as they had not had instructions from him.  The decision appealed against is one that followed a hearing lasting some 18 days, the Extended Reasons being sent to the parties on 29 June 2000.  The appeal was in the Employment Tribunal for London South.  The Respondents are the Commissioner for Police for the Metropolis and 4 others.

2	This is clearly a complicated matter.  There was a voluminous Notice of Appeal and that settled apparently by solicitors.  That led to the first Preliminary Hearing before Mr Recorder Langstaff, Queen’s Counsel and members or the Appeal Tribunal on 27 March 2001.  Mr Langstaff in an effort to identify and narrow the issues so that this Tribunal could consider whether there were arguments fit to go forward for a Full Hearing, made a direction that the Appellant, then represented by Counsel, produce 4 or 5 summary points which the Recorder described as ‘the best points’ so that the matter might proceed.  The deadline set for that was passed.  It was extended by the Registrar to 6 July and now the application before us if for that deadline to be extended yet further.

3	We have come to the conclusion, even in the absence of Mr Denteh, that time should be extended no further for Counsel or for Mr Denteh himself to accept and follow the instruction given by Mr Recorder Langstaff back in March.  Considerable time and indulgence has been given to this Appellant to seek to put his case into a manageable and understandable form.  That has not happened and time will not be extended.  In the result the Registrar will now fix a date for the Preliminary Hearing to be resumed.  We cannot deal with the matter today as it is only before us to deal with the application for the extension of time.  An early date should be obtained for the Preliminary Hearing.