United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 321_95_2007

Appeal No. EAT/321/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 20th July 1995

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MR D G DAVIES

MR J A SCOULLER

---

INSTANT FIRESTOP CONTRACTING LTD          APPELLANTS

MRS C ANGEL          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE           APPELLANTS


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Stratford on 24th January 1995.

The Industrial Tribunal heard a claim by Mrs Cheryl Angel that she had been unfairly dismissed by Instant Firestop Contracting Ltd, and that deductions has been made from her wages in contravention of the Wages Acts 1986.

She presented her application to the Industrial Tribunal 22nd August 1994. At the hearing on 24th January 1995 she appeared in person. The respondent company did not appear and was not represented. It appears from the extended reasons for the Tribunal's decision in her favour, and notified to the parties on 27th February 1995 that the respondent had not put in a Notice of Appearance, but had made an application to the Tribunal for a postponement of the hearing. That was refused. In refusing the application for postponement, the Chairman directed that the respondent had until Monday, 23rd January 1995 to submit a Notice of Appearance. It was pointed out that was at the discretion of the Tribunal whether that would be accepted out of time. Reasons had to be given in writing as to why the Notice should be accepted out of time. It was explained that the position would be considered when the documents were at hand. Nothing further was heard from the respondent or their representatives. When the hearing took place on 24th January 1995 Mrs Angel appeared, but nobody appeared for the respondent.

The Tribunal considered whether they should grant a postponement. They decided not to do so. They said in pargraph 23:

"In arriving at that decision we have had in mind the lateness of the application and the injustice to the Applicant of further delay. We have decided to hear this application in the absence of the Respondent and we have considered the fax from Michael Sakno dated 20/6/94 together with a letter from him dated 29/6/94, both addressed to the Applicant."

They heard evidence from the applicant. They concluded that she had been unfairly dismissed. The respondent was ordered to pay £3,908.00 by way of compensation for unfair dismissal. It was also declared that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from her wages, amounting to £418.00. The respondent was ordered to pay that sum in addition to the compensation for unfair dismissal.

The respondent appealed against that decision by a Notice of Appeal dated 17th March 1995. The grounds of appeal are referred to in an accompanying letter. It is unnecessary to go into further detail.

The position today is that the company has not attended the hearing or been represented. An application was made earlier this month for the hearing to be postponed. That application was made by a letter dated 5th July 1995. That letter set out what as described as "extraordinary circumstances" which justified the hearing being postponed. They were informed on 6th July 1995 that their application had been considered and rejected. They were advised in the letter rejecting the application for a postponement that they should either deal with the matter by written representations or arrange for someone to represent them, if no one could turn up from the company personally to argue the appeal. There has been no further response from the company.

The position therefore is that there is no one here to argue their appeal. We have considered the grounds of appeal and the extended reasons for the decision. We are unable to find any error of law in the decision. The plain fact is that the company has never put in a Notice of Appearance stating the grounds on which they resist the claim. They were given every opportunity to do so before the Industrial Tribunal. I refer in particular to the fax sent on 20th January 1995 by the Industrial Tribunals Stratford office. Nobody appeared at the Industrial Tribunal hearing to apply for an extension of time for serving a Notice of Appearance, or to explain why no Notice of Appearance had been put in in time or to explain what the grounds of defence were to the claim. In those circumstances, the Tribunal were fully justified in proceeding with the hearing and deciding it on the basis of the evidence given.

There is no error of law in proceeding in that way. We are unable to find any error of law in the decision itself. As regards this appeal, they have been refused a postponement. They have had an explanation of what they should do, if they were in difficulties in attending personally. They have neither put in written representations nor arranged representation. In those circumstances there is no point in this case proceeding to a full hearing. It will dismissed at this stage. There has been no error of law demonstrated in the procedure or substantive decision of the Industrial Tribunal.