Chillerstrip 24 Hour Blinds Ltd v Cross [1997] UKEAT 865_96_2403

EAT
Chillerstrip 24 Hour Blinds Ltd v Cross
[1997] UKEAT 865_96_2403 · 1997-03-24
MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This matter was before the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 10 March 1997. During the course of that hearing, I indicated in a judgment given on behalf of the Court, that the Appellant had sent us a fax on 6 March saying with great regret he was unable to attend the hearing set down for 10 March as his mother had had a brain haemorrhage on the Thursday.I indicated that that had been the second or third occasion when this matter had been adjourned at the suit of this particular Appellant. I indicated that it would have been better if we had had some corroborative written evidence of the facts stated in the facsimile: but we indicated that we would fix the date when it was to come back before the President as 24 March, listed to commence at 10.00 a.m. In the Employment Appeal Tribunal's judgment I made the following comment:
"... I should point out to the prospective Appellant that he is in breach of an Order made by the Employment Appeal Tribunal that he should serve an Affidavit. That Order was made on 4 December 1996 and must be obeyed. I shall expect both a copy of the Affidavit on the day of the hearing, together with an explanation from the Appellant as to why the Order was not complied with in time. I should warn the Appellant that the case will take place on 24 March whether or not the particular individual, namely, Mr Jeremy Hill, is available. He must obtain some kind of representation for himself if he personally is unable to attend. We shall deal with the matter finally on that day come what may."
The Appellant was accordingly informed of the position. On 19 March he sent us a fax saying:
"... I would like you to consider an adjournment until the latter part of April 1997.
We asked for an adjournment for the 10th March on the basis of my Mothers condition and were given the 24th of March, however 14 days given the circumstance is not sufficient, so please could this be extended as requested above.In addition I would like to point out that the 27th of February was not an adjournment of our making, contrary to what I was told this morning, this adjournment was made due to being told in the first instance the date would be the 10th of March and then receiving notification from yourselves that it was to be 2 weeks earlier. If it had not been for my Mother's untimely illness and the severity of her condition the 10th of March would have been possible.This is not a stalling process but a genuine request, and I hope you will deal with it accordingly."It is to be noted that nowhere in the 19 March letter does Mr Hill indicate that he has prepared an Affidavit or is intending to prepare an Affidavit to comply with this Court's Order. He is in breach of the Order which was made on 4 December 1996 and he has put forward no explanation for why he has failed to comply with it. It seems to us most unsatisfactory.Accordingly we apply ourselves to the question of whether we should grant an adjournment or not. We do not propose to accede to his requests for an adjournment. We consider that his conduct in this matter has shown that he is not prepared to comply with the rules of procedure or with orders made by this Court. We are not prepared to grant him any further indulgence. We have not received any phone call from him this morning. We informed him in response to the letter of 19 March that the case would be in the list today. There is no representative attending on his behalf. Accordingly we are unhesitatingly of the view that the correct order to make in this case is that the Notice of Appeal, which was filed in this case, should be dismissed. Accordingly we shall dismiss this appeal.