[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Ayobiojo v. Nalgo Unison-Lambeth [2002] UKEAT 0696_01_2406 (24 June 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/0696_01_2406.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 696_1_2406, [2002] UKEAT 0696_01_2406

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


MRS RECORDER COX QC

1. This matter comes before us today by way of Preliminary Hearing. Mr Ayobiojo, the Appellant, appeals against the decision of the London Central Employment Tribunal, promulgated on 2 April 2001, to strike out the Appellant's Originating Application. Throughout these proceedings the Appellant has represented himself. He drafted the Notice of Appeal. He does not appear before us today and is not represented. Nor do we have any skeleton argument from him.
2. We have seen a letter to this Tribunal, dated 19 June, from the Appellant's wife requesting an adjournment of today's Preliminary Hearing on the basis that her husband is at present in police detention as a result of which he will be unable to attend. On the direction of the Registrar a written reply dated 20 June was sent to the Appellant at his home address by fax and post. This stated that notice of the hearing had been sent to the Appellant on 5 February 2002, that there was a three day limit on custody by the police and that unless charged and denied bail the Appellant should therefore be available for the hearing today.
3. A further letter was faxed to this Tribunal on 23 June, again from the Appellant's wife, informing the court that her husband in fact is in custody which was ordered by the Woolwich Crown Court and further that he is in any event unwell. A telephone call to the Appellant's wife elicited the information that he had been in prison since February of this year. Further enquires made at our request this morning have established that the Appellant is in Belmarsh, a high security prison. It appears that he is in the 'normal' location in that prison and not in the health care suite.
4. We have no power under the Rules to issue a Production Order in order to secure his attendance. In all the circumstances we see little alternative to adjourning this matter this morning so that the Preliminary Hearing can be re-listed to take place on another date and we so order. We note that a letter has today been sent to the Appellant's wife requesting some further details as to whether or not the Applicant has been convicted of any offence, and if so, for what period of imprisonment he has been sentenced and further matters which will enable the court to decide when this matter is to be re-fixed.