EAT/635/00, EAT/769/00, 1057/00 EAT/1136/00, EAT/1191/00 MR D GOULD v (1) THE GOVERNORS OF HAILEYBURY & IMPERIAL SERVICE COLLEGE (2) THE GOVERNORS OF LAMBROOK HAILEYBURY SCHOOL [2000] UKEAT 635_00_2010

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
BAILII case number: [2000] UKEAT 635_00_2010Case No 4Appeal No. EAT/635/00, EAT/769/00, EAT/1057/00 EAT/1136/00, EAT/1191/00 EAT/578/00Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
Between
EAT/635/00, EAT/769/00, 1057/00 EAT/1136/00, EAT/1191/00 MR D GOULDAPPELLANT(1) THE GOVERNORS OF HAILEYBURY & IMPERIAL SERVICE COLLEGE (2) THE GOVERNORS OF LAMBROOK HAILEYBURY SCHOOLRESPONDENTEAT/578/00 MR D R S GOULDAPPELLANTKEMP & CORESPONDENT
Before
Mr Justice LindsayDate 20 October 2000
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT) : These are appeals, all preliminary and all by Mr D R S Gould. They involve huge amount of reading which we have given to the papers. We had expected Mr Gould to appear today, probably assisted by an ELAAS duty barrister. I should say that we understand that Mr Gould is himself a barrister but not, so far as we know, a practising barrister. At 23.51 yesterday, so far as one can tell from the fax to the Employment Appeal Tribunal first able to be read this morning, Mr Gould sent a fax that says:
"I regret that I would be unable to attend the hearing tomorrow owing to acute tonsillitis. I regret the inconvenience. Would someone be so kind to tell the ELAAS duty barrister that I will be unable to meet him or her prior to the hearing. Yours sincerely David Gould"
[2]The moment that was drawn to my attention, at probably something like quarter to ten this morning, I asked that Mr Gould should be telephoned or faxed to find out whether his letter or fax was intended to be a request for an adjournment or whether he was content that we should decide the matter on paper, because there is voluminous written argument already put in by Mr Gould in this matter.[3]Mr Gould's faxes, unusually perhaps, do not ever disclose the number from which he is faxing and give no return number at which he can be faxed. There are a number of telephone numbers in the papers, for example, 01803298441 and 01803294141 and I apprehend also a mobile number to which a message has been sent this morning but without our being able to reach Mr Gould. Messages have been left asking him to telephone or fax as soon as possible to indicate whether he wishes to have an adjournment, whether we are to consider his letter as an application for an adjournment or whether, as I say, he would be content that we should deal with it on the existing paper. Nothing has been heard and it is now 12.25, the case, of course, having been listed to come on at 10.30.[4]We see no alternative to adjourning the matter. As we have spent such a considerable time on the papers we reserve the matter to this present three. But it is not right simply that we should accept a bare assertion of acute tonsillitis without it being further substantiated, nor is it acceptable that Mr Gould should have faxed at 23.51 yesterday without making some arrangement for further communication to be received from the Employment Appeal Tribunal.[5]Accordingly, we adjourn the matter generally. It can be restored under ordinary listing provisions. But when it does come back we shall require from Mr Gould a sworn statement from him as to the circumstances which he alleges disabled him from attending today, including the date and time at which such situation first seemed to him to be the case and and a full explanation of any delay between that date and time and the sending of his fax to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and an explanation, if appropriate, of why the fax was not sent earlier.[6]He must also explain his failure to supply a telephone or fax number at which he might be reached on 20 October, today, by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. He must also adduce such direct medical evidence as he would wish to rely upon as substantiating any medical ground for his non-attendance today and that medical evidence is to include, as far as possible, an explanation of the likely point in time in which it should have occurred to Mr Gould that he would be unable on medical grounds to attend today.[7]The sworn statement should include an explanation as to his whereabouts throughout the whole of today, and also an explanation of why he has failed, as yet, (that is to say, down to 12.30 on 20 October) to respond to the messages left for him at the telephone numbers that the Employment Appeal Tribunal has made contact with, which include the one ending 441 and the one ending 141 that I cited earlier and include also, in addition, an Orange mobile phone.[8]We shall expect a full explanation on those lines when the matter is restored for hearing but , subject to that, and subject to our reserving it to ourselves, we simply adjourn the matter generally with liberty to restore.