BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hoolash v O'Gorman [1994] UKEAT 81_94_2305 (23 May 1994)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/81_94_2305.html
Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 81_94_2305

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


    BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 81_94_2305

    Appeal No. PA/81/94

    EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

    58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

    At the Tribunal

    On 23rd May 1994

    THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

    (AS IN CHAMBERS)


    MR ABOO S HOOLASH          APPELLANT

    MISS C A M O'GORMAN          RESPONDENT


    Transcript of Proceedings

    JUDGMENT

    Revised


     

    APPEARANCES

    For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR

    ON BEHALF OF

    APPELLANT

    For the Respondent NO APPEARANCE BY OR

    ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT


     

    MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is the adjourned hearing of the appeal by Mr Hoolash against the order of the Registrar, dated the 15th December 1993, in which she refused to extend the time for appealing against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal.

    The matter first came on for hearing on the 16th May 1994. The application was adjourned until today for the Appellant to produce to the Tribunal (1) his passport and any other evidence that he had of his absence abroad at the relevant time for appealing and (2) an explanation as to why the appeal was not brought at an earlier time by someone else concerned on his behalf with the business carried on by him.

    Although the matter was listed for hearing today Mr Hoolash has not attended nor has his lay representative, Mr Igham. In those circumstances the appeal will be dismissed. The relevant information which the Tribunal requires to deal with the appeal has not been produced. There has therefore been a default in complying with an order of the Tribunal. That justifies dismissal of the appeal.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/81_94_2305.html