[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Jones v. Sun Valley Foods Ltd [2001] UKEAT 655_01_2206 (22 June 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/655_01_2206.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 655_01_2206, [2001] UKEAT 655_1_2206

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	APPELLANT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK

1. On 20 November 2000 the Applicant, Mr Jones, presented an Originating Application to the Cardiff Employment Tribunal complaining of unfair constructive dismissal by his former employer, Sun Valley Foods Ltd. Looking at the Respondent's Notes of Appearance the claim was vigorously contested.
2. In his Originating Application he named as his representative Simon Powell of Transport and General Workers Union, his trade union. It seems that there came a time when he was unrepresented and correspondence from the Employment Tribunal was sent direct to the Appellant at his home address. In particular, by a letter dated 7 February 2001 he was ordered to provide further and better particulars of his case by 21 February.
3. At the end of that Order he was warned that failure to comply might result in the whole or part of the application being dismissed.
4. On 21 February the Respondent's solicitors wrote to the Employment Tribunal to say to them that the Appellant had not complied with the Order of 7 February. On 2 March a copy of that letter was sent to the Appellant and he was asked for his comments by 7 March. He did not respond.
5. On 19 March the Employment Tribunal wrote to the Appellant setting out the history and inviting him to show cause within seven days why his complaint should not be struck out for failure to comply with the Order to provide further and better particulars of his case. Again he made no response and on 3 April 2001 a Chairman Dr Rachel Davies struck out the originating application.
6. Against that decision an appeal was lodged by a notice dated 17 May signed by Rowley Ashworth, Solicitors of Birmingham.
7. On 13 June Notice of this Preliminary Hearing was sent to those solicitors. We have seen a fax from the Secretary to Mr Michael Stokes of that firm dated 14 June 2001 which encloses the Forms IT1 and IT3 following a telephone conversation with the associate dealing with this case, Mr Michael Arbuckle.
8. This morning there has been no attendance by or on behalf of the Appellant. Telephone enquires have been made of the Appellant's solicitors which have culminated in a fax from that firm in these terms:

"Unfortunately the writer (Mr Stokes) was not aware of the above hearing and apologises for any inconvenience for his failure to attend their cause. We should be grateful if the hearing could be adjourned and re listed."

9. We find it odd that the Appellant's solicitors were unaware of the hearing, having themselves sent a fax to this Employment Appeal Tribunal on 14 June which in terms refers to today's hearing date. In these circumstances we shall refuse the request for an adjournment.
10. Turning to the merits of this Appeal we can find none. It seems that the Cardiff Employment Tribunal complied with all the procedural steps necessary up to and including the strike out Order.
11. It is incumbent upon parties to comply with orders of the Employment Tribunal and not to ignore correspondence from the Employment Tribunal. If they fail in this basic task they have only themselves to blame if their claim is struck out.
12. We can detect no arguable point of law raised in this appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed.