United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 301_93_0510

Appeal No. EAT/301/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 5 October 1994

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MISS J W COLLERSON

MR P DAWSON OBE

---

MR A JARVIS T/A SKELTON BUILDERS          APPELLANT

MR J DORAN          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY

OR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE

APPELLANT

For the Respondent NO APPEARANCE BY

OR REPRESENTATION

ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENT


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Leeds on 10 December 1992. For reasons notified to the parties on 15 December 1992 the Tribunal unanimously decided that the applicant Mr Doran was entitled to a redundancy payment of £720 and holiday pay of £181.71.

In the full reasons the Tribunal identified the dispute between the parties as to the date on which Mr Doran began his employment with the respondent, Mr A. Jarvis trading as Skelton Builders. The Tribunal resolved that dispute in favour of Mr Doran. There was also a dispute as to when the employment ended. The Tribunal resolved that in the favour of Mr Doran.

The respondent was dissatisfied with that decision and appealed, by Notice of Appeal dated 18 January 1993. The ground of the appeal was that Mr Doran had completely misinformed the Tribunal, knowingly and falsely, about the dates. He persuaded the Tribunal to accept them as the correct dates. Various documents were produced by Skelton Builders to reinforce their allegation against Mr Doran.

Mr Doran informed the Tribunal that he wished to withdraw his appeal. It was pointed out to him by the Tribunal that it was not his appeal to withdraw. The appeal was by his former employers.

The matter proceeded to the Listing for today. Neither side has appeared or been represented. The Tribunal has not been informed of any agreement reached between the

parties. The position is that, as the appellant has not attended to pursue the appeal, it is dismissed for want of prosecution.

We therefore dismiss the appeal.