[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Abegaze v. British Telecommunications Plc [2001] UKEAT 1450_99_3004 (30 April 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1450_99_3004.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 1450_99_3004

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
For the Respondent	MR P THORNTON (Of Counsel) Instructed by Mr A Whitfield Solicitor Group Legal Services 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ


 


HER HONOUR JUDGE WAKEFIELD

1. This is a Preliminary Hearing of the Appeal by Dr A Abegaze to determine whether the Appeal should proceed to a full hearing. We have received this morning a letter from the Appellant applying for an adjournment of this hearing on medical grounds. From the letter and from the accompanying documents we can see no grounds for granting the application for an adjournment and it is refused.
2. We have therefore considered the merits of the Appeal on the documentation. The matter has a very long and complex history. The decision now appealed against is one by an Employment Tribunal sitting at Bury St Edmunds on 21 and 22 July 1999. The decision itself was promulgated on 27 September 1999.
3. By the application, the Appellant had alleged that he had been discriminated against on grounds of race, in that the Respondent failed in August 1996 to offer him a job. By its decision the Employment Tribunal dismissed that application.
4. At a hearing at this Appeal Tribunal on 12 May 2000 the Appellant was ordered by Lindsay P to file by 1 June 2000 an amended Notice of Appeal. His then existing Notice of Appeal which was dated 2 November 1999 ran to some 20 pages and contained numerous matters which were irrelevant to an Appeal.
5. No amended Notice of Appeal has been filed in response to that Order. On that ground alone this Appeal could now be struck out under Rule 26 of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules. We have nonetheless considered the existing Notice of Appeal. From it, we are unable to identify any sustainable argument that the Employment Tribunal was wrong in the decision which it made. The Appeal is therefore dismissed.