United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1993] UKEAT 140_93_2505

Appeal No. EAT/140/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 25th May 1993

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)

MR J RAMSAY

MRS P TURNER OBE

---

LONDON HOIST LIMITED          APPELLANTS

B KEY          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants NO APPEARANCE BY OR

ON BEHALF OF EITHER PARTY


 


MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by London Hoist Limited from a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (North) under the Chairmanship of Mr Robson, who on the 25th August 1992 found in favour of the Applicant, Mr Key, that he had been unfairly dismissed and made a substantial award in his favour.

The Respondent, who employed him, was London Hoist Limited. It is obviously a small Company operating, so we understand from the correspondence, on narrow margins because it is suggested that the award will in fact push the Company into liquidation.

However, that I am afraid, cannot concern us on this occasion. We can only look at the procedures and to see if there was a point of law and to see whether, in fact, the Company has any right to appear before us. It seems, from the correspondence, that there may have been some misunderstanding in this case because what occurred and what is set out in the Notice of Appeal is: that on the 14th May 1992, which is some 5 months before the hearing took place, the Appellant's Notice of Appearance, due to a failure to comply with certain orders for particulars, was struck out and the Appellant was debarred from defending altogether.

That must have taken place under the Industrial Tribunal (Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1985, Rule 4(4) that provides that if compliance with an Order has not taken place then the Court can direct that the Respondent shall debarred from defending altogether. In that event the Respondent is no longer taking part in the proceedings and therefore, in our judgment, no longer has power to appeal to this Court.

But in any event if we are wrong in that, we have read the papers in this proposed appeal, and in fact it is now an appeal. We can find no error in the course taken by the Industrial Tribunal whereas we understand there may be a feeling that the award was somewhat high. Nevertheless, there is no error of law here and this appeal must be dismissed.