United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 510_94_0702

Appeal No. EAT/510/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 7 February 1995

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MS R CHAPMAN

MRS TERESA MARSLAND

---

MR K GANESHMOORTHY          APPELLANT

H R SMITH (TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS) LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE OR

REPRESENTATION BY THE APPELLANT


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mr Ganeshmoorthy against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Cardiff on 17 March 1994.

For reasons notified to the parties on 12 April 1994, the Tribunal unanimously decided that the dismissal was fair.

He appealed against the decision. His notice of appeal dated 23 May 1994 was signed by a firm of solicitors acting for him, Hancocks. So far as this Tribunal is concerned, Hancocks of 6 Worcester Street, Gloucester Green, Oxford, have never notified the Tribunal that they have ceased to be his solicitors. According to the listing office in the Appeal Tribunal, a call was received there on 10 January 1995 from another firm of solicitors, Bailey, Shaw and Gillet saying that they were now acting for the Appellant. No letter has been received from that firm, notifying this Tribunal of the change of solicitors acting for the Appellant.

On 24 January a telephone call took place between a member of the listing office and a member of the firm of Bailey, Shaw & Gillet fixing the hearing of the preliminary hearing of this appeal for today. In accordance with the usual procedure, a written notice was sent out on 25 January stating that the hearing would take place not before 2 pm today. The listing office cannot be sure whether that notice was sent to the first firm of solicitors, Hancocks, whose name still correctly appears on the file because they have never given notice of their replacement by other solicitors, or whether it was sent to the new firm of solicitors.

The position today at 4 pm is that no one has attended on behalf of the Appellant. A telephone call has been made by the listing office to Bailey, Shaw & Gillet, but it has not been possible to make contact with Mr Rigby of that firm, who had the telephone conversation with the listing office on 24 January. It has been ascertained from a representative of the firm that they would not be agreeable to this matter proceeding in the absence of representations from them.

In the circumstances, we feel unable to proceed with the preliminary hearing. We therefore adjourn it on the basis that letters are sent by the Tribunal to both firms of solicitors requesting from them an explanation as to when, in the case of Hancocks, they ceased to act for the Appellant and when, in the case of Bailey, Shaw & Gillet, they started to act for the Appellant and why they have not in writing notified this Tribunal of their position as new solicitors. We hope that a full written explanation will be forthcoming from both firms of solicitors by the time the adjourned hearing takes place.

It is the duty of a firm of solicitors, which ceases to act for a party on an appeal, to notify this Tribunal as soon as possible that they no longer act, so that the listing office know who to contact in future. It is also the duty of the new firm of solicitors, who begin to act on an appeal, to notify this Tribunal in writing that they are now acting as solicitors and to provide details of the person at that firm, who is dealing with the matter.

It may be the case that the adjournment in this case has been caused by the failure of one or both firms of solicitors to perform those duties. We say nothing in criticism of them before we hear their explanations.

On that basis, this matter is adjourned to be refixed as soon as the position on legal representation has been clarified.