United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 539_93_1805

Appeal No. EAT/539/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 18 May 1995

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MR J A SCOULLER

MR N WILLIS

---

MR & MRS KHURANA T/A GOODAY LEATHERGOODS          APPELLANTS

MRS M SCOTT          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF           APPELLANTS

For the Respondent NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF

RESPONDENT


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by Mr & Mrs Khurana trading as Gooday Leathergoods against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at London (North) on 18 June 1993. The Tribunal heard a claim made by Mrs Scott; her claim was for unfair dismissal. The Tribunal unanimously decided that Mrs Scott was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent Employer, but she contributed to her dismissal to the extent of one-third. Mr & Mrs Khurana were dissatisfied with the decision, having examined the Full Reasons notified to the parties on 24 June 1993. They therefore appealed by a Notice of Appeal dated 6 July 1993. The position today is that Mr & Mrs Khurana have not attended to argue their appeal. There has been correspondence between the Employment Appeal Tribunal and them since last August, attempting to fix a convenient date for hearing. They were notified on 16 August 1994 that the case was in the warned list for October, at an estimated time of hearing. It was not heard then. They were sent a letter on 2 December, enquiring whether they intended to proceed with the appeal. There was no response to that. They were sent a letter on 21 February, referring to the earlier correspondence and stating: "unless I hear from you by 8 March, I propose to list the appeal for disposal by this Tribunal."

Nothing further has been heard. In those circumstances we can only conclude that the Appellants no longer intend to pursue the appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of prosecution.