Appeal No.	EAT/1119/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 13 February 2002

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILKIE QC
MR P DAWSON OBE
MS H PITCHER

MR J ROBERTS	APPELLANT

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION & EMPLOYMENT	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

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

JUDGE WILKIE QC:

1	This is an appeal by Mr Roberts, against a decision of the Chairman of the Employment Tribunal sitting at Liverpool on 14 March 2001, which refused his request for a postponement of a hearing which was listed before that tribunal on 15 March 2001.

2	Mr Roberts had brought an application seeking an unspecified remedy that the respondent, the Department of Education and Employment, had infringed his right not to be refused employment on grounds of trade union membership and infringement of his Human and Legal Rights.  

3	The Notice of Hearing for a hearing on 15 March 2001 was sent to Mr Roberts on 30 January 2001.  On the same date an application of the applicant for an order for discovery by the respondent was made.  In fact, the order for discovery made had been complied with, pursuant to the enclosures with letters of 13 February and 5 March 2001, the latter of which contained a bundle of documents to which the respondent intended to refer at the hearing.

4	In his letter of 14 March to the tribunal Chairman Mr Roberts had requested his adjournment of the hearing on the grounds, he said, that the respondent had not furnished him with any documentation upon which it intended to rely at the hearing of the 15th.  Notwithstanding the Chairman’s refusal of the postponement, Mr Roberts failed to attend the hearing on 15 March and, accordingly, after a short hearing, the unanimous decision of the tribunal was to dismiss his application.  

5	Mr Roberts has never sought to appeal that decision of the tribunal of 15 March.  He lodged an appeal against the refusal of the postponement by letter dated 14 March.  The Employment Appeal Tribunal was unable to hear his appeal due to lack of time and resources in sufficient time but Mr Roberts was informed, by telephone and by letter dated 15 March, that the documents would be kept on file in anticipation of any other Notice of Appeal that might be lodged by Mr Roberts.

6	On 18 July 2001 the Employment Appeal Tribunal wrote to Mr Roberts informing him that the appeal against the refusal to postpone was still stayed at the EAT, to ask him whether he would be lodging a Notice of Appeal against the Employment Tribunal decision of the 15th or whether he wished still to proceed with the present appeal.

7	On 31 July the Employment Appeal Tribunal wrote to Mr Roberts to the effect that they had not received a response to their earlier letter and asking whether he still wished to proceed with the stayed appeal.

8	On 1 August 2001 Mr Roberts wrote to the Employment Appeal Tribunal saying that he wished to proceed both with the stayed appeal and against the outcome of the hearing that had gone ahead in his absence and he requested reasons for that Employment Tribunal decision.

9	On 4 September 2001 the Employment Appeal Tribunal wrote further to Mr Roberts asking if he would confirm in writing whether or not he wished to pursue his appeal against the Employment Tribunal decision not to postpone the hearing of 15 March.  On 27 September the EAT wrote notifying Mr Roberts of this preliminary hearing date for his appeal to take place on 13 February 2002.  It informed Mr Roberts that the hearing is to determine whether the grounds in the Notice of Appeal raise a reasonably arguable point of law.  A Notice of Appeal had been lodged against the Employment Tribunal decision promulgated on 14 March 2001 refusing to postpone the hearing on 15 March.  No Notice of Appeal had been received against the decision of 15 March and any such appeal would now be out of time.

10	Mr Roberts failed to respond either to the letter of 4 September or 27 September and has failed to attend today.  Therefore, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal at this preliminary stage, because Mr Roberts has failed to prosecute it and, in any event, it is manifest from the papers that it has no reasonable prospect of success.