Appeal No.	 EAT/793/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 5 November 2001

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE A WILKIE QC
MS S R CORBY
MR I EZEKIEL

MS J JARRIM-ALOMIA 	APPELLANT

LANCASTER OFFICE CLEANING COMPANY	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING 

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	No appearance or 
representation by or 
on behalf of the Appellant

		

JUDGE A WILKIE QC

1	This is an appeal by Ms Jarrim-Alomia against the Decision of the Employment Tribunal dismissing her application the Tribunal hearing taking place on 6 February of this year and recorded in a Decision of 16 February.  

2	Her application was one of sex discrimination, unfair dismissal and breach of contract which was launched by her application on 5 November 1999, received by the Employment Tribunal on 6 December 1999.  At that time she was acting by Liberty Solicitors, 85 Kingsland Road, in London.

3	In her application she made a series of allegations in support of her claims and on 23 December the Respondent put in a Notice of Appearance in which they denied that she had been dismissed, denied the accuracy of the dates of employment and set out their own version of events, from which it is apparent that there were very substantial factual disputes between the parties.  They were represented by SBJ Employment and Safety Services Ltd.  

4	On 6 February of this year, there was a hearing of her applications before the Employment Tribunal at which she made no appearance.  The Extended Reasons for the Decision record that a notice of the hearing had been sent to the parties on 15 December 2000.  There was a failure to attend on her part or to be represented and the Decision records that no communication of any sort had been received by the Tribunal.  

5	The Tribunal, therefore, having considered the Originating Application, and a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 9 of the Employment Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure dismissed the application.  

6	The appeal was itself launched on 26 March of this year.  Once again, the Appellant acted through the same solicitors.  It asserted an error of law, namely that the Tribunal failed properly to apply its discretion under Rule 9 of the Industrial Tribunal Rules 1993, and that taking into account the circumstances of the case, a reasonable Tribunal should have exercised judicial discretion to adjourn the case.  

7	Further and Better Particulars of the Notice of Appeal were furnished in a document which we infer came from Liberty Solicitors.  This was in response to a direction from the Registrar of the Employment Appeal Tribunal that, upon the Appellant’s failure to provide Further and Better Particulars in accordance with the Practice Direction and her failure to respond to EAT letters of 20 April and 9 May, the Registrar ordered that unless Further and Better Particulars were received within fourteen days, the Notice of Appeal would be struck out.  That Direction was given on 29 May and the document to which we have referred was received on 13 June which may be just outside the fourteen days, but at best is on the deadline.  

8	The Appellant has failed to attend the appeal this morning and therefore we have to determine it in her absence and without the advantage of any representation.  The error of law identified in the Further and Better Particulars is that the Rule requires the Tribunal to show that the facts and merits of the case have been considered and that this should be evident on the Extended Reasons.  Immediately prior to this alleged error is a reference to the wording of Rule 9(3) of the Regulations which requires the Tribunal to consider the Originating Application or Notice of Appearance, any written representation that he may have made under Rule 5 and any written answers provided under Rule 4(3).  

9	It is our judgment that this is an appeal without any real prospect of success.  It is plain from the face of the Extended Reasons of the Tribunal that they did have regard to the matters referred to in Rule 9.  It is also plain that this was a matter where there were substantial disputes of fact, set out on the Notice of Application and the Notice of Appearance.  There is no sensible basis upon which it can be said that the Tribunal erred in law in dismissing her application when she did not attend and was not represented.  We are therefore minded to dismiss this appeal at this stage, without requiring it to go through to an inter partes hearing.  

10	The Employment Appeal Tribunal office has received no communication from the Appellant as to why she is not here. Therefore to reflect that situation, we will order that this appeal will stand dismissed seven days from today, unless there is some communication from the Appellant to indicate why this Decision should not take effect.