DR A ABEGAZE v (1) SOUTH EAST ESSEX COLLEGE (2) MR ANTHONY PITCHER (PRINCIPAL) [2003] UKEAT 0862_02_0105

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
BAILII case number: [2003] UKEAT 0862_02_0105Case No Appeal No. PA/0862/02Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
Between
DR A ABEGAZEAPPELLANT(1) SOUTH EAST ESSEX COLLEGE (2) MR ANTHONY PITCHER (PRINCIPAL)RESPONDENTS
Before
His Honour Judge J McMullenDate 1 May 2003
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant No Appearance or Representation By or on Behalf of the Appellant HIS HONOUR JUDGE J McMULLEN QC On 20 March 2003 Dr Abegaze's case was listed in front of me for a hearing pursuant to his Notice of Appeal dated 24 June 2002. The Registrar ruled on his notice on 3 March 2003 and the Applicant submitted a further amplified appeal dated 31 January 2003.[2]I first considered an application by the Applicant to adjourn the proceedings because of his medical condition. I read the papers for the appeal, considered his submissions and granted his request for an adjournment. I ordered that the appeal should not be listed before 12 April 2003, which was at the end of the six month period for which he had presented a medical certificate. I ordered that any hearing should not come before 2.00 p.m. on any given day, which is what I considered to be a reasonable adjustment to the Applicant's condition, making it, as he asked, suitable for him to make a presentation of his case in the afternoon rather than in the morning.[3]The Applicant, it appeared to me, had also made inappropriate comments to members of staff and officers of the EAT and I ordered that no telephone or personal communication should be made by him and all matters should be put in correspondence.[4]The medical certificate which was presented to me on the last occasion was signed by Dr A A Abucanem at Pollard Road Surgery in London E2. It said that the Applicant was suffering from severe depression, tinnitus and unsteady and that he should refrain from work for six months from 12 October 2002. That was signed on 29 October 2002. The Applicant had presented other medical certificates earlier indicating depressive illness, scrotal pain, on medication and so on.[5]Thus it was that the case was adjourned until a date outside of the existing medical certificate.[6]Today I am in receipt of a letter written by the Applicant to the President dated 22 April 2003 in which he says this:
"I enclose the letter I have sent to the Lord Chancellor. I formally tell you now if you fail to put the date of this hearing to an appropriate date in view of my illness (see enclosed medical certificate) I will ask you to withdraw the case."
[7]The reference to the letter to the Lord Chancellor is to his letter (a copy of which is dated 22 April 2003) in which he accuses the EAT and Mr Justice Burton of blunt fascism. The medical certificate to which it refers is provided by Dr J N Hardy of Bethnal Green Health Centre E2. It is signed on 31 March 2003. It recommends that the Applicant should refrain from work for six months and that the diagnosis of his condition is depression. Under the heading ' Doctor's Remarks ' is this:
"Backdate to 24.3.03"
[8]It seems to me that the medical certificate today is very different from that which was before me on the last occasion. It indicates that the Applicant is no longer suffering from severe depression (but only depression) or any of the preceding conditions which had been diagnosed. There is no indication that the Applicant is unable to attend the appeal or to make oral or written representations or to instruct a representative.[9]The first question I have to ask myself is whether it is in the interests of justice to allow a further adjournment of the appeal against the striking out of the Applicant's claim. I am conscious of factors which need to be balanced. I bear in mind that the allegations to which the Originating Application pays reference date from July to October 2000. The complaint is made against two Respondents, one of whom is the Principal, an individual Respondent.[10]The Applicant has given no indication of his ability or otherwise to have his case heard by me today. The result of a favourable decision on the appeal would be that the case would go back to the Employment Tribunal for directions and for hearing in due course. It would thus be a considerable distance in time from the date of the original allegations before the case could be heard, during which time the College and its Principal would be required to deal with pleadings and with the case.[11]In my judgment it is not fair on them and it is not in the interests of the administration of justice for this case to be adjourned further. I note that it is only a week ago that the Applicant made the application to the President and that the medical certificate is backdated to the 24 March.[12]With the state of the medical evidence as it is, set against the inevitable delays, the disruption that would occur to the College and to the Principal, and there being no indication by the Applicant as to when he would be fit, on this occasion I refuse the application to adjourn.[13]I then turn to the Applicant's letter indicating that if this were to be my view he would withdraw the appeal. So be it. The appeal is dismissed upon his withdrawal of it.