[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Mutambirwa v. Carl Bros Uk [2001] UKEAT 871_01_2811 (28 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/871_01_2811.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 871_01_2811, [2001] UKEAT 871_1_2811

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

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


JUDGE D PUGSLEY

1. In this case the Appellant has submitted a Notice of Appeal which says:

"A Chairman of the Employment Tribunal did make the false instrument issued on 15 February 2001, with the intention to induce the Employment Tribunal to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it on 4 April 2001 to dismiss the Originating Application in Case Number 1807743/2000 to the Appellant's prejudice.

The Instrument is false in that it purports to have been made in the form in which it is made by the Appellant who did not in fact make it in that form."

2. The history of the matter is set out in the Decision of the Regional Chairman sitting with members on 4 April 2001. In that case the Decision of the Tribunal was that:

"a) the originating application is struck out pursuant to Rule 4(7) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993; and

b) the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent in the sum of £400 pursuant to Rule 12(1) of the said Regulations."

3. In those Reasons the Tribunal outlined the Decision they were making which had to be read in conjunction with an earlier Decision of a Chairman, sitting alone on 8 February 2001. On that occasion the Chairman decided that

"3……. the Applicant had failed to comply with an order dated 24 January 2001 requiring the applicant to give further and better particulars of his originating application. Mr Hildebrand gave reasons for that decision. That decision was not the subject of an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Nor has the applicant asked Mr Hildebrand to review that decision. Accordingly, we do not see it as our function to consider the merits of that decision.

4. Also on 8 February, Mr Hildebrand directed that a letter should be sent to the applicant, inviting him to show cause why his claim should not be struck out for failure to comply with the tribunal's order for particulars made on 24 January and, in particular, paragraph 3 of that order. Meanwhile, the applicant was conducting a different campaign, which included making allegations against Mr Hildebrand and against a Partner of the firm of solicitors representing the respondent, who is a part-time chairman of Employment Tribunals."

The matter was listed for hearing and the Appellant was told:

"This case has been referred to a tribunal chairman who has directed that the case should be listed for a strike out hearing of the original application."

4. On 8 March, the Applicant applied for a postponement of the hearing on 4 April on the grounds that that Chairman of the Employment Tribunal, as summarised in paragraph 6 of the Decision:

"did knowingly and wilfully make a statement false in a material particular in this case". He added that the matter had been referred to the Lord Chancellor's Department upon The West Yorkshire Police Force for advice. He appeared to think that the case would be postponed because he had made a complaint of a criminal nature and that the matter should accordingly be postponed pending an investigation of that complaint. There is absolutely no evidence to support the applicant's complaint, which appears to be entirely misconceived."

5. There were then further applications for postponement and the Respondent's solicitors opposed the application and it was decided by the acting Regional Chairman that there was no reason why the hearing, which was on 4 April should be postponed.
6. There was then a further application for postponement which was refused. The Applicant did not attend and the Regional Chairman and two lay members, caused a telephone call to be made; that evoked no reply. They thought everything had been done, and they therefore struck out the Originating Application, for the reasons they gave, namely that it be struck out pursuant to Rule  4(7).
7. An affidavit was filed on 22 June by the Applicant, dealing with various matters, and on 25 June the Employment Appeal Tribunal sought the views of the Regional Chairman as to the contents of that, in particular, Mr Sneath, the Regional Chairman says this:

"In his affidavit, the applicant says that on 15 February 2001, the chairman of Employment Tribunals (sic) produced a document that he claimed was originally produced by the applicant. Looking at the file, it is difficult to understand what the applicant is getting at. There was no hearing on 15 February, nor does there appear to be a letter bearing that date. If I am wrong, then I shall be happy to consider the matter again."

8. Quite simply, we just do not know what this case is about. None of us feel that there is any arguable matter of law that is raised. The Applicant has not appeared, it is now a quarter to three in the afternoon, and we feel in those circumstances, the only appropriate course is to dismiss this appeal.