BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Badibanga v Szerelmy UK Ltd [1991] UKEAT 458_90_2309 (23 September 1991) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1991/458_90_2309.html Cite as: [1991] UKEAT 458_90_2309 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MR A FERRY MBE
MISS C HOLROYD
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant THE APPELLANT IN
PERSON
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an Appeal by Mr Badibanga from Decisions of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (South) under the Chairmanship of Mr Bassingthwaite, who "struck out" his proceedings under Rule 8(3) of the Industrial Tribunal Rules which allows the tribunal to strike them out if the Applicant or a party fails to appear or be represented at the time and place fixed.
Of course, it is a very wide discretion within the Tribunal and it is not a power that is used save, after the most careful investigation of the matter.
Mr Badibanga issued an Originating Application dated the 1st February 1989 alleging discrimination and also undue influence and delay or not wishing to provide a written contract of employment. The allegation was made against a firm called "Szerelmey UK Ltd".
The matter was due to be heard; information had been given to the Applicant; a message had been received by the Tribunal saying that he would let the Tribunal know of his new address. He failed to turn up, the Respondents arrived and the Tribunal took the view there was no reasonable excuse and struck him out. However, he applied for a Review; the Tribunal gave him every opportunity to give explanation and to provide a Hearing for him. They wrote to him and ultimately there was a proposal for a Hearing, two dates were given, they were vacated in fact, but on the 26th February 1990 the Applicant rang saying he might be late because of weather conditions and he was advised to contact the Tribunal the next day.
On the 27th February 1990, the day appointed, the Tribunal assembled, the Respondent plus four witnesses were there, the applicant did not attend and left a message that he could not do so because there were no trains available. The Tribunal gave him a final date, and ultimately there is a letter saying that he was advised by the wireless not to travel unless absolutely necessary.
The Tribunal take the view that the Applicant had made no effort on the 27th February to reach the Tribunal. He could have found his way and if he had been prevented he could have `phoned. They took all the circumstances into account and maintained the decision to "strike out" the proceedings.
This Applicant has been given every opportunity, the Tribunal was acting well within its powers and well within its discretion. We can find no error of law.
This Appeal will be dismissed and it is.
