[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Jaafar v. Flexal Springs Ltd [2002] UKEAT 1321_01_2108 (21 August 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1321_01_2108.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1321_1_2108, [2002] UKEAT 1321_01_2108

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

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


JUDGE D SEROTA QC

1. This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mr Jaafar against a Decision of the Employment Tribunal, London Central, chaired by Miss A M Lewzey, promulgated on 29 September last year, when it was held that his applications for race and sex discrimination were made out of time, and it was not just and equitable to extend the time any further.
2. Also that in respect of his other claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, failure to provide written terms of employment and written reasons for dismissal, it was reasonably practicable to present the complaint within the prescribed time limit, and he was ordered to pay £100 costs. The unfair dismissal and the written reasons claims were dismissed because he had not worked for the qualifying year and discrimination also related to acts against persons other than the Applicant.
3. It would seem that the termination of the Applicant's employment, was either on 22 February or possibly 1 March. The application dated 1 May, was received by the Tribunal on 4 June, and the envelope had two postmarks, 1 June and 2 June. The Applicant said that he was conscious of the three month time limit. He had prepared his Notice of Application on 1 May and then sought legal advice, and it was delayed by a postal strike.
4. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of any postal strike and although material has been placed before the Employment Appeal Tribunal, it does not show that there was any strike, in effect, in London at the time that this application would have been posted.
5. Be that as it may, this is the second occasion that this matter has been listed, and the second occasion that the Applicant has failed to attend. No explanation has been given; in those circumstances, it would seem to us it is inappropriate for us to rule on the merits of his application, and we shall strike it out on the basis that there is no one here to present it on his behalf.