Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> East v Ruston Gas Turbines Ltd [1991] UKEAT 275_91_0210 (2 October 1991)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1991/275_91_0210.html
Cite as: [1991] UKEAT 275_91_210, [1991] UKEAT 275_91_0210
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
(IN CHAMBERS)
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR B COTTER
(Of Counsel)
Nelson Wright & Walker
8 Unity Square
Lincoln
LN2 5AH
For the Respondents No Appearance by
or on behalf of Respondent's
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an Interlocutory Appeal from the learned Registrar of this Court who refused to extend time for the lodging of the Notice of Appeal.
The Appeal is listed before me today and was so listed on the 16th September.
As far as this Court was concerned we received a telephone call from the Solicitor's acting for the Appellant, Mr East, at about 4.15 pm yesterday evening, saying that they wanted an Adjournment as the Appeal was hopeless.
I declined to grant an Adjournment there and then and stipulated that the matter should come before me today.
Appearing today is Mr Cotter, of Counsel, without his instructing Solicitors. He has explained to me the difficult position in which he has found himself.
On the 19th September he received instructions to advise on the substantive Appeal by Mr East to this Court from a Decision of an Industrial Tribunal promulgated on the 17th April 1991. His instructions included that Decision and some documentation.
He was asked specifically whether the limitation on the Legal Aid Certificate should be lifted. Neither he, nor this Court has a copy of that Certificate. He advised that there was an arguable case but that the Notice of Appeal would need to be amended. He imagined that today's fixture was to be that of the substantive Appeal and had prepared an amended Notice of Appeal which he would seek to place before this Court on the Appeal. There was nothing in his instructions to indicate that today was not the substantive Appeal.
Yesterday, the 1st October, he saw a letter from his instructing Solicitors which was dated 27th September, received in his Chambers on Monday 30th September but which he did not see until yesterday because he was out of Chambers. That letter indicated that the Solicitors were worried that Counsel had not been adequately instructed that today's Hearing was an Appeal against the Order of the learned Registrar not to grant an extension of time.
Mr Cotter telephoned to his Solicitors yesterday afternoon, after lunch, saying that he was quite unaware of that matter and having looked at the documentation concerning the extension of time which he had not seen before he indicated that he would have to advise the Legal Aid authorities that there was no merit in that Appeal, which was most unlikely to succeed and that Legal Aid should not cover that Interlocutory Appeal.
He received a further `phone call from his instructing Solicitors during the afternoon saying that the Respondents were prepared for the Interlocutory Appeal to be withdrawn and would not seek costs, but that his instructing Solicitors would have to obtain instructions from Mr East, who was not on the telephone.
At 8 pm yesterday evening Mr Cotter was told that Mr East would not give instructions to withdraw the Appeal, and he was instructed to apply this morning for an Adjournment. This he has done.
I have shown him a letter from the Respondents' Solicitors - the Respondents are Ruston Gas Turbines Ltd, and their Solicitors are Messrs Nightingales of Manchester - indicating that they had received a telephone call from Mr Cotter's instructing Solicitors indicating that the Appellant was withdrawing his Appeal; that was at 4.25 pm yesterday. Messrs Nightingales point out there that they agreed to the abandonment but reserved their position as to costs. They asked to be excused from attendance today in the circumstances. This Court has notified them that that is quite understandable.
In the circumstances justice demands that this matter should be adjourned and it is. It will be adjourned to a date to be fixed.
We have not received a copy of the Legal Aid Certificate, Mr Cotter does not have it. If today's Interlocutory Hearing is covered by a Legal Aid Certificate then this Court will grant a Certificate for his attendance today and I am most grateful to him for his attendance and the way he has handled this matter.
There will be no Certificate for his instructing Solicitor who has not seen fit to attend.
The costs of this whole Appeal will be reserved and when this matter is relisted I shall expect an explanation from Mr Cotter's instructing Solicitors of the whole episode.
I shall direct that this Appeal is not to be withdrawn without a further Hearing. This matter will come back. Mr Cotter's instructing Solicitors, whether or not Mr Cotter appears for them, will attend, and the man or woman responsible will have to explain to this Court what has occurred.
The Order therefore is adjourned to a date to be fixed; Certificate for Mr Cotter, if it is covered by Legal Aid, otherwise cost reserved; matter to be relisted on date to be fixed; Solicitors to attend to give explanation of this present situation.