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 >> Prout (t/a Outline Fitness Centres) v Walton [1995] UKEAT 416_92_0910 (9 October 1995)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/416_92_0910.html
Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 416_92_0910, [1995] UKEAT 416_92_910
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)
MRS M T PROSSER
MR J A SCOULLER
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION
For the Respondent NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION
MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal from the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Birmingham as long ago as 14 October 1991. For summary reasons notified to the parties on 15 November 1991, the Tribunal unanimously decided that the Applicant's complaint that there had been unauthorised deductions from her wages, contrary to the Wages Act, was well-founded. The Applicant was Mrs Walton, the Respondent Mr J C Prout, trading as PR Outline Fitness Centres.
There was an application for review of that decision. The application was made by the Respondent, Mr Prout. The Tribunal, for reasons notified on 7 April 1992, refused the application for review and confirmed the decision. Mr Prout appealed against the decision. His Notice of Appeal was received on 11 May 1992. In the Notice of Appeal he described himself as Mr J C Prout, Managing Director, F S Curtis Ltd., trading as P R Outline from an address in Wigan.
The position is that the company no longer exists; and no funds are apparently available to Mr Prout to pursue the appeal. He informed the E.A.T. that in those circumstances he would withdraw the appeal and write in to that effect. No written application has been received from Mr Prout indicating his intention to withdraw the appeal. A further letter has been sent to him pointing this out. No reply has been received. He was therefore notified by letter of 4 September that, in the circumstances described, his appeal would be set down for disposal. No further communication has been received. In these circumstances the Tribunal has concluded that there is no intention to prosecute this "stale" appeal and will be dismissed for want of prosecution.