[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Morrison v. Document Bureau Ltd [2002] UKEAT 493_01_0402 (4 February 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/493_01_0402.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 493_1_402, [2002] UKEAT 493_01_0402

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

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE A WILKIE QC

1. This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mr Morrison against Decisions of the Employment Tribunal, held at Leeds on Tuesday 6 February last year.
2. That Tribunal, by its Decision, dismissed Mr Morrison's application for unfair dismissal, and for damages to alleged breach of contract. It made an Order that he pay to the Respondents, The Document Bureau Ltd, a sum of £500 in respect of a contractual counter-claim, and made an Order that Mr Morrison pay the Document Bureau's costs, on the standard basis, to be subject to a detailed assessment, if not agreed. Mr Morrison had been represented at the Tribunal by Mr Robert Monks, of Counsel, instructed by Ware & Kay, Solicitors, of Sentinal House, Peasholme Green, York.
3. Mr Morrison's appeals against those Decisions of the Employment Tribunal were launched in a document received by the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 21 March of last year, a document settled by Mr Monks. The case was initially listed for preliminary hearing on 15 May of last year, pursuant to a Notice of Hearing sent to Mr Morrison's solicitors on 4 May.
4. On 15 May, Ware & Kay wrote to the EAT to the effect that they had been trying to contact their client to obtain his further instructions in respect of the appeal, but had unfortunately been unable to contact him, and therefore asked for the matter to be taken out of the 15 May list and be relisted.
5. That duly happened, and on 10 July, a further Notice of Hearing of a preliminary hearing was sent to Ware & Kay, that hearing to take place on 11 September. On 10 September, Ware & Kay wrote further to the Employment Appeal Tribunal to confirm that neither they nor Counsel would be in attendance at the preliminary hearing on 11^th as they were without funds from their client. They therefore asked that the hearing be adjourned, in order that Mr Morrison could take advantage of the ELAAS scheme.
6. The case was duly taken out of the list on the second occasion, and on 11 September, a further Notice of Hearing of this preliminary hearing was sent to Mr Morrison in person, that the preliminary hearing would be listed for 10.30 on 4 February, that is today.
7. As it is normal practice, on 10 January of this year, the Employment Appeal Tribunal sent to Mr Morrison a copy of the index to the prepared Court bundle of documents. They reminded him that Skeleton Arguments were by that stage due, and that they should be lodged with the Court as soon as possible. There was no response to that letter.
8. On 22 January, again, as is normal practice, a further letter was sent to Mr Morrison, reminding him that Skeleton Arguments should be lodged with the Court at least seven days before the hearing on 4 February. Once again, there has been no response to that letter.
9. The matter therefore was listed for hearing today. It is now 11.40 am. Mr Morrison has not attended, and has not made any communication with the EAT to indicate that he is intending to attend, and attempts to contact the telephone numbers that he has given have proved to be unavailing.
10. We are therefore driven to the conclusion that Mr Morrison has no intention of pursuing this appeal, and therefore we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.