Appeal No. EAT/1443/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 14 March 2001

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR H SINGH
MR J C SHRIGLEY

MISS R BANGURA	APPELLANT

RADISSON EDWARDIAN HOTELS LTD	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MISS N MALLICK
AMICUS CURIAE
(Of Counsel)

JUDGE P CLARK

1.	This is an Appeal by Miss Bangura, the Applicant before the London Central Employment Tribunal sitting on 21 - 28 September 2000, against that Tribunal’s reserved decision promulgated on 3 November 2000, in particular dismissing her complaints of unlawful racial discrimination, both on their merits and with one exception on the basis that they were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.

2.	Before the Tribunal the Appellant was represented by Ms Mallick of Counsel, then instructed by Employment Law Services of Wembley Law Chambers, Wembley, Middlesex.  At that time, we understand, Employment Law Services employed a legally qualified person and in those circumstances they were able to instruct Ms Mallick, who is in independent practice at the Bar.

3.	The grounds of appeal in this case were settled by Ms Mallick and she has attended the Employment Appeal Tribunal today.  We are grateful for her attendance because it turns out that she is not instructed on behalf of the Appellant in these circumstances.  Apparently the legally qualified person formerly employed by Employment Law Services has left and there is now no legally qualified person at that organisation who can instruct Ms Mallick.

4.	Employment Law Services have apparently made no alternative arrangements for Miss Bangura to be represented today.  Miss Bangura, at best speaks limited English and we are satisfied that she would not be in a position to conduct this Appeal hearing in person.  

5.	In these circumstances we have heard from Ms Mallick as an amicus.  She, in that capacity, invites us to adjourn this Preliminary Hearing.  She tells us that the Appellant wishes to apply for legal aid and if successful solicitors may then be instructed who in turn will instruct Counsel, sensibly Ms Mallick, to appear on the adjourned Preliminary Hearing.  We have acceded to that Application in these circumstances but we must impose a time limit.  Unless within 2 months of the promulgation of this judgment a new representative has written to the Employment Appeal Tribunal indicating that the Appeal is to be pursued, the Appeal will stand dismissed.  If such communication is received then it will be relisted for Ex Parte Preliminary Hearing.  There are no further directions at this stage.